Oh, wait, I see your point now...

[DreamThrall]

Those who still believe that there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11, those who believe the US is safer thanks to GW, and those who want to call Kerry a liar while cheering for Bush with a straight face, please consider some simple logic and then let me know why you believe as you do. Because I'm truly dumbfounded.

What happened on 9/11?
We were attacked by terrorists, most from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Who is one of the biggest recipients of US Foreign Aid?
Egypt.

Why didn't we retaliate against Egypt?
Ever since the Camp David Peace Accords, Egypt has been an essential ally in our effort to seek peace in the Middle East.

What type of government does Egypt have?
Egypt has one of the most oppressive and corrupt governments in the world; it jails political opponents, abuses the human rights of its citizens, and has created a breeding ground for terrorists that hate America.

What is our goal in the Middle East?
We want to spread freedom and democracy.

Is it logical to ignore the type of government Egypt has?
Nope.

Why do we?
Egypt is an essential ally in fighting the War on Terror.

Who else attacked us on 9/11?
Saudi Arabians.

Which country has funded the madrasas, the schools where Islamic fundamentalists, al Qaeda and the Taliban teach young Muslim youth throughout the Middle East to hate America and the West?
Saudi Arabia.

And why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia?
Well, Saudi Arabia is America's leading supplier of oil and one of our key allies in our War on Terror.

What type of government does Saudi Arabia have?
The Saudi Royal Family uses press censorship, torture and brutality to maintain control of its population, breeding more terrorists. In fact, Osama bin Laden is Saudi.

Is it logical to ignore the type of government the Saudis have?
Nope.

Why do we?
Saudi Arabia is a key ally in spreading freedom and democracy in the Middle East.

Who else do we depend upon in our War on Terror?
Pakistan.

What is the most important goal of President Bush's War on Terror?
Stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Which country did the Bush Administration find to be the most prolific exporter of weapons of mass destruction technology?
Pakistan. Its leading nuclear scientist sold planeloads of nuclear technology to North Korea.

Why didn't we attack Pakistan?
Pakistan is our ally in stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Where is Saudi Arabian Osama Bin Laden?
Reportedly hiding in the hills of Pakistan with other members of al Qaeda.

Why is Pakistan our ally?
We need Pakistan to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction and to capture Osama Bin Laden.

Why are we in Iraq?
To win the War on Terror.

Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11?
No.

Then why did we attack Iraq?
We attacked Iraq to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Did we find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
No.

Had Iraq exported weapons of mass destruction technology?
No, that was done by our ally; Pakistan.

Who attacked us on 9/11 again?
Egyptians and Saudi Arabians; our oppressive allies helping us spread freedom and democracy in the Middle East.

Oh, wait, I see your point now....

 

[Recoil]

I once read something like that before... where the son asked his father that kind of questions, and the father didn't notice that he bit himself in the a** with the answers after a while...

Here's the link
http://develnet.org/ThisAndThat/DaddyWhyDidWeHaveToAttackIraq

 

[Dax]

On a more positive note; Saddam was removed from power.

 

[Direwolf]

I love it when people assume that those who have different opinions than their own are simply ignorant.

 

[DreamThrall]

I love it when people assume that those who have different opinions than their own are simply ignorant.

OR, I never said anything about ignorance, and I asked for an explanation:

...and then let me know why you believe as you do. Because I'm truly dumbfounded.

I emboldened the part where I did so in case you forgot to read it the first time I posted it.

 

[CptStern]

On a more positive note; Saddam was removed from power.

too bad it cost the lives of 10,000 civilians

 

[DreamThrall]

Anyways, lets try and keep this on topic...

Those who still believe that there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11, those who believe the US is safer thanks to GW, and those who want to call Kerry a liar while cheering for Bush with a straight face, please let me know why you believe as you do. Because I'm truly dumbfounded.

 

[CrazyHarij]

Kill 'em all

 

[Direwolf]

I don't actually feel that way, so I can't defend most of those people very well. But I do respect that many of them are extremely well informed and intelligent people, and they believe what they do for a reason.
It would probably be much easier to go looking for their reasoning (websites, blogs, etc) than asking them to come to you.

 

[Letters]

I read one half of the first line.

/me pats himself on the back

 

[alehm]

too bad it cost the lives of 10,000 civilians

That is too bad. It's also too bad Saddam got to kill several hundred thousand civillian lives while he was in power.

 

[Sai]

sometimes i get the feeling some people just start these politics and power threads just so they can get people to start flaming and have their thread be more than two pages.....

 

[CptStern]

That is too bad. It's also too bad Saddam got to kill several hundred thousand civillian lives while he was in power.

just think how many lives would have been saved had the US never helped saddam

 

[ComradeBadger]

just think how many lives would have been saved had the US never helped saddam

LET'S CHANGE THE PAST!

Oh, wait, we can't. How about we try and fix our mistakes?

There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. T'was just used as further justification to attack Iraq, since people won't buy the 'Threat to the world line'

How's this for an ickle fact(s):

In 1995, the UN found evidence that Saddam Hussien had possesion of enough VX nerve agent to gas the population of the entire world

Also, they found a replica of the same facility used to develop the Manhatten Project. However, when they got there, it missed the key parts needed to enrich unranium. These parts were later captured on photograph, on a truck, driving away.

Thread to the world anyone?

 

[gd867]

Warning- this is long and boring.
I do think that getting this semi-rant off my chest will make it easier to keep my dumb mouth shut whenever anyone I know starts talking politics.

Firstly, let me say that I think both Kerry and Bush are politicians (read- maggots) whose chief difference is simply the way in which they spend my money. Democrats tend to take my money to spend on ponzi schemes like social security (http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm), teacher, labor, and federal employee unions, while Republics also take my money to spend on equally stupid things like the war on drugs and other morally driven causes. Without the war on terror, neither would have a chance at getting my vote.

That said, this is why I am considering voting for Bush.
Though I know you didn't mention it as an issue, I'd like to say it nonetheless- economics. Bush inherited a difficult economy. Most economists, and economically minded friends of mine, were predicting a significant and lengthy recession post 2000. Most of the above (including Greenspan) now credit Bush's tax cuts for dodging this recession, and are pleasantly surprised at the growth numbers posted these days.
I like tax cuts no matter what, because the government gives me money back.
John Kerry says that he will fight to take that money right back away from me.
A little more on this- right now there is a crazy rumor spreading from credible sources that the Bush administration is going to support the dissolution of the IRS and the gradual shift towards a national sales tax. That sounds way too good to be true to me, but if true, it would certainly get my vote, and probably one of my kidneys also, if George needs it. Seriously, thats my economic nirvana.

Ok, sorry about that, the war on terror. I believe that there are three primary reasons for the war in Iraq.
First, the most important, is the pressure a US presence places on the region, chiefly on countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It was a move that forced that hand of the more stable countries, Saudi Arabia especially, because it takes away the option for that country to do nothing. SA has been forced to square its shoulders and seriously address terrorists within its own country, by both the credible threat of US intervention from next door, and by the sharp increase of terrorist activity in SA that our actions in Iraq directly caused. Most of the more significant arrests are happening because of both Pakistan and SA's strong cooperation, something that likely would not have happened without the Iraq war. I said that I believe this is the primary reason for the war in Iraq, but this was very much glossed over by the administration in favor of issues like WMD and terror connections. I think that a choice, whether by Bush or his advisers, was made that the strategic consequences were a little too complicated to sell to the American people, and so very simple reasons were used to sell it publicly- WMD= bad, terrorists= bad, place with both= bad. It's infuriating that the admin didn't think highly enough of us to shoot straight, but they certainly never lied. Every major intelligence agency on the planet firmly believed that Saddam had WMD. The British and Russians repeatedly advised Bush on what they believed were Iraqi attempts to develop nuclear weapons. The decision to use these WMDs as a selling point was probably easy at the time, because it seemed like such a lock that Saddam had them.
Given the fact, as you pointed out, that a majority of Americans still believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11, which not only has never been said by anyone in the administration or public news media, has by both been clarified and explained a million times, maybe I can understand why it was too scary to trust us Americans with the more complex machinations of Middle Eastern strategy, but I still think the leap of faith should have been made, risks aside.
And secondly, the terror connections. Too clarify, this is NOT to say that Iraq was involved with 9/11, which has never been claimed by the admin or anyone sane, for that matter. What has been said is that Iraq, despite Saddam's differences with Osama, was still a viable haven for Al Qaeda operatives. This belief, unlike that in WMD, has continually been validated by ongoing intelligence, and very well outlined in the recently released 9/11 commission report.
Thirdly, the WMD and despotic and oppressive nature of Saddam's hold on Iraq. To be very insensitive: the Sarin gas, the torture, the mass killings, as terrible as they are, really just strike me as gravy. You correctly pointed out that plenty of countries around the world do things as bad or worse to their citizens, and we don't invade these countries. I think these conditions simply make the war easier to swallow and feel good about, as well as improve the positive reception of the Iraqi people themselves to American liberators.

So yea, I agree with the reasons for the Iraq war and support it almost completely. I will concede these screw-ups. George Tenet should have had his ass canned a long time ago. He was continually cited and blamed (maybe as a scapegoat- we don’t know) for the US intelligence failures about WMD. And yet he kept his job for a very long time. If the admin is going to publicly blame someone for a screw-up, fire that person or own up to it yourself.
The same goes for Rumsfeld, who still has his job. In this case, it’s much clearer that he personally screwed up. He was responsible for reducing the number of troops we sent to and stationed in Iraq. This proved to be a mistake. In places like Fallujah, were serious problems needed to be solved, we did not have the strength to do anything more than surround the place and let our enemies grow and prosper. But we have lucky beyond belief in this respect. Very recently, with US troops in a defensive posture, insurgents have switched to soft targets. I’m sure some of you heard about the bombings of Iraqi mosques all throughout the country recently. The insurgents, who had been relying on a significant amount of support from rather ignorant Iraqi people in these smaller towns, have now managed to piss off pretty much every Iraqi by attacking these targets. Already, even on the smallest local level, the Iraqis have organized themselves and are determined to capture or kill those they once were often ambivalent towards. We still don’t have enough troops to adequately support the stabilization of this country, but we’ve made much more progress than we’ve probably deserved. Still, Rumsfeld screwed up big time, and should be fired.


Bush has very much surprised me with the effectiveness with which we’ve fought the war on terror. The amount of arrests made and funds seized is staggering. There’s no reason to be complacent, but I do believe that our country under this admin has made unbelievable progress. Every credible analyst I hear these days says that we’ve decimated Al Qaeda’s ability to perform orchestrated and large scale attacks like 9/11. Of course, these analysts also believed that Saddam had plenty of WMDs, but still, its promising.


But that still doesn’t mean Kerry couldn’t do it better. If he convinces America of this, he’s in. I personally don’t think so, for the following reasons. Mostly, his criticism of what I think are some of the most effective moves made in the war on terror. The Iraq war is the most obvious. The stupidest thing he continues to say is that he wouldn’t attack anywhere unless we were attacked on our own soil first. 9/11 happened chiefly because we chose to ignore the problem of terrorism until after they had killed a few thousand of us. Afghanistan, especially in the 90s, was essentially the birthplace of our enemies. They have since left Afghanistan and spread throughout the world, and our complacency and isolationism allowed this to happen. Kerry also insists that we should act only through the UN. I happen to believe that, at best, the UN is ineffectual, and at worst, it is significantly corrupt. I don’t really want to entrust something like the war on terror to the UN.
Kerry does keep insisting that he would trust the American people with the truth, which I like, but without anything to back it up, it's just politician speak.

I don’t really think that either Kerry or Bush lies more than a typical politician.
Kerry makes me blink every once in a while- the SUV thing comes to mind, and Gerhard Klan’s pretty credible counter to what Kerry said about a Vietnam village raid (this was at least 5 years back), but I don’t even come close to believing most of the more wild crap that gets thrown around about him (anyone hear about this new book coming out, written by members of Kerry’s PT boat, and former COs of his? It sounds pretty crazy- accuses him of all sorts of stuff, faking his medals, shooting himself for the third purple heart to get his tour of duty cut short, vanity, blah blah blah) anymore than I believe the equally retarded nonsense Michael Moore says about Bush.

So yea, I’m not going to pretend I’m a purely objective human being who processes only facts. That likeability stuff plays in, if only a little bit. But I can say that without the policy decisions I outlined above, the soft crap wouldn’t make a difference in the world, and I’d never vote for Bush. His non-economic domestic policy is atrocious. He’s increased social spending more than anyone since FDR. It’s my money he’s taking out of my pocket and spending on crap I generally don’t support, and he’s doing it at light speed.
But he’ll probably get my vote on the strength of the economy and the war on terror. And he’ll get it five times if he confirms that he’s going after the IRS (I’ll find a way).

 

[ductonius]

just think how many lives would have been saved had the US never helped saddam

Yeah, the Soveit invasion of Western Europe would have been way cheaper in terns of lives. Too bad the US meddeled in Middle Eastern affairs and kept the Soviets from aquiring the neccisary resource base to launch an invasion.

If you didnt notice, the US helped Saddam during the cold war, and stopped once they knew the Soviets were dead for sure.

 

[HatRabit]

not another political thread :|

/me sticks his head into a microwave

 

[Recoil]

* HatRabit sticks his head into a microwave

Yeah, I'll help you with that for sure! Return *bang* my *bang* f**kin *bang* smilie *bang!*

('Bang' is the sound when I smash you with the microwave-door )

 

[CptStern]

Yeah, the Soveit invasion of Western Europe would have been way cheaper in terns of lives. Too bad the US meddeled in Middle Eastern affairs and kept the Soviets from aquiring the neccisary resource base to launch an invasion.

If you didnt notice, the US helped Saddam during the cold war, and stopped once they knew the Soviets were dead for sure.

please post links if you're going to postulate on 30 years of history

well you got one part right: the US does like to meddle in other's affairs, if it's self-serving

 

[HatRabit]

Yeah, I'll help you with that for sure! Return *bang* my *bang* f**kin *bang* smilie *bang!*

('Bang' is the sound when I smash you with the microwave-door )

erm....wtf are you talking about. I didnt steal anyones smilie. I made this myself
:cheese: :frog:


Ontopic:

I agree, America is bad but not too bad. Kerry looks like a horse and Bush looks like a monkey, they both have bad policies and talk funny but the're nice people once you get to know them. The war in Iraq was bad but not terrible. Its good that Saddam is gone but bad that people died getting rid of him. now lets all shutup and not make any more politics threads, ok.

 

[king John I]

its easyest to pretend it never happend, i know i do.

one question i want to know is why the Fcuk did britain join the war? oh well...

 

[ductonius]

please post links if you're going to postulate on 30 years of history

well you got one part right: the US does like to meddle in other's affairs, if it's self-serving

So, the US must have spent all that money arming the border between West and East Europe for no reasons other than its own interest? All the medium ranged nukes there were there not becaue a Soviet invaison of West Europe was a distinct possibility but becaue it served to get the Americans what they wanted? And the wars fought between Soviet backed and US backed forces in Europe after WWII had nothing to do with the Soviets wish to expand?

Virtually every world move made by the US 1947-90 was made to counter the spread of communism in general and Soviet expantion in particular. To now blame the Americans for ensuring the safety of thier and the people of Western Europe against the Soviets is an excercise in willful ignorance.

Deny all you want, but if you live in NA or Europe, make no mistake that even to this day, you or your family were kept safe by arms stamped "Made in USA", provided or operated at the cost of the US taxpayer.

 

[Fender357]

I'm not reading the rest of the thread. Ok..... People say Sadam was a threat...well...he was. BBBB B B B BUT. The UN sent in inspector after inspector to make sure he didn't have all that crap anymore because we told him "NO, BAD DICTATOR!". Before we declaired war on him, the inspectors didn't find anything. Our spys posing as inspectors didn't find anything, but did find buildings that, just might have been able to hold something like that. So that marked them for bombing.

Sadam was an ass and I dont like him. But all of this crap should have been handled WAY differently.

And as for the first post on this thread, all I have to say to that is, Yep.

 

[spookymooky]

GD867, welcome to the boards!

To what SUV comment or incident were you refering in you excellent post?

 

[gd867]

To what SUV comment or incident were you refering in you excellent post?

This was maybe a month or two back- Kerry was aksed if he owned an SUV. He firmly said no. It wasn't very hard to find out whether this was true, and it turns out that he does own one, at his house in Idaho. He then lamely responded that his family owns it, and he doesn't drive it, and spun some politician crap about buying American cars.

I've got no problem with criticism of SUVs, but I don't think it's that hypocritical to admit that they can be fun to drive. With the money that family has, it's not like they can't afford the gas. Environmentalists aren't going to vote for Bush if Kerry has an SUV, and nobody else really cares, so why bother with the spin?
I'm pretty used to politicians manipulating every little piece of information the public gets about them, but it was just ridiculous for him to try so hard to weasel out of such an insignificant detail.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4009850,00.html

 

[ComradeBadger]

I'm not reading the rest of the thread. Ok..... People say Sadam was a threat...well...he was. BBBB B B B BUT. The UN sent in inspector after inspector to make sure he didn't have all that crap anymore because we told him "NO, BAD DICTATOR!". Before we declaired war on him, the inspectors didn't find anything. Our spys posing as inspectors didn't find anything, but did find buildings that, just might have been able to hold something like that. So that marked them for bombing.

Sadam was an ass and I dont like him. But all of this crap should have been handled WAY differently.

And as for the first post on this thread, all I have to say to that is, Yep.

Except the aforementioned VX nerve agent, and biological agent growing matter.

 

[Sulkdodds]

In 1995, the UN found evidence that Saddam Hussien had possesion of enough VX nerve agent to gas the population of the entire world

Some of which the US gave them, surely?

Virtually every world move made by the US 1947-90 was made to counter the spread of communism in general and Soviet expantion in particular. To now blame the Americans for ensuring the safety of thier and the people of Western Europe against the Soviets is an excercise in willful ignorance.

But can you deny that they took it too far? Running drugs in Laos to help fund the already dubious Vietnam War and staging CIA-sponsored coups in south & central America, deposing communist dictators and replacing them with pro-US ones that were much, much worse? That sort of thing?

 

[Direwolf]

That the US gave it to him doesn't make it any better. For the record even Hans Blix said confidently that Saddam probably had lots of stuff no one knew about, and that the Iraqis had been meddling in the investigations. There was legitimate reasons to think that the inspectors were not going to be able to ever find anything incriminating.

 

[Javert]

too bad it cost the lives of 10,000 civilians

And the lives of soldiers, industrial workers, and International respect and dignity. Not to mention the billions of dollars and capital.

Warning- this is long and boring.
I do think that getting this semi-rant off my chest will make it easier to keep my dumb mouth shut whenever anyone I know starts talking politics.

I read it all, and a most excellent post. Certainly one of the more open posts I’ve read from a conservative and better posts I’ve read from a headcrab (I underestimate yall sometimes). Now, some clarifications. Don’t take bold offensively, they’re main pointers for those too lazy to read.

That said, this is why I am considering voting for Bush.
Though I know you didn't mention it as an issue, I'd like to say it nonetheless- economics. Bush inherited a difficult economy. Most of the above (including Greenspan) now credit Bush's tax cuts for dodging this recession, and are pleasantly surprised at the growth numbers posted these days.
I like tax cuts no matter what, because the government gives me money back.

Usually conservatives are good with economics (I would declare myself a Republican if the World was just economics), but Bush was not. He gave tax breaks, sure, but not for you or me. He got us out of a recession, but spent it all on defense and government contracts. Now that’s not a bad thing nowadays, but this was PRE-9/11! He spent, and spent, and spent us into a trillion dollar deficit. Now Kerry gives money to services that we all need. Would you rather pay an extra $200 in taxes? Or an extra $200 in education, extra 2% in health cost rates, poorer transportation, fouler pollution etc.
Growth numbers? I’d like to see them. Employment is down (Outsourcing an issue, but not the “killer”). Stock Market is down. Consumer confidence (as of this year) are down. House rates (the boon of the last two years) are falling. Gas Prices are rising. Health costs etc etc. Where is this economic growth you speak of?

I think that a choice, whether by Bush or his advisers, was made that the strategic consequences were a little too complicated to sell to the American people, and so very simple reasons were used to sell it publicly- WMD= bad, terrorists= bad, place with both=bad. Every major intelligence agency on the planet firmly believed that Saddam had WMD. The British and Russians repeatedly advised Bush on what they believed were Iraqi attempts to develop nuclear weapons. The decision to use these WMDs as a selling point was probably easy at the time, because it seemed like such a lock that Saddam had them.

Well the “simple reasons” turned out to be false reasons. First off, though we may have security with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, care to take a guess how much their government and people hate our guts? And do you know what they do when they hate our guts? Terrorism.
You said it too, it’s a damn shame that the government would think us “simple-minded”. Also, the WMD our intelligence found were Outdated, unusable, and few. Bill O'Reily himself said it was a mistake. Now, my question: Why would the President of the United States trust British and Russian intelligence over ours saying that there weren’t any WMD’s? Every US intelligence that said there were WMD's, are now effectively chastised.

Bush has very much surprised me with the effectiveness with which we’ve fought the war on terror. The amount of arrests made and funds seized is staggering. There’s no reason to be complacent, but I do believe that our country under this admin has made unbelievable progress. Every credible analyst I hear these days says that we’ve decimated Al Qaeda’s ability to perform orchestrated and large scale attacks like 9/11. Of course, these analysts also believed that Saddam had plenty of WMDs, but still, its promising.

If you define “effectiveness” as “Short Term Goals”, then yeah I agree, we simply kicked their ass. BUT, the war is NOT over, the job is NOT done, and long-term-wise, it’s as ineffective as, daresay, Vietnam.
Funds have not been properly seized. Saudi Arabia still refuses to freeze terrorist assets, including those involved with 9/11. The Swiss, due to procedure and regulation, also refuse to freeze assets unless 100% certain they are terrorist assets (hard to do…)
Arrests are made, but new terrorists are made everyday.
We have NOT decimated Al Qaeda in any sense of the term. They are still out there, they are still capable, and they are still dangerous. Proof? Read this week’s news about our financial buildings.

He’s increased social spending more than anyone since FDR. It’s my money he’s taking out of my pocket and spending on crap I generally don’t support, and he’s doing it at light speed.
But he’ll probably get my vote on the strength of the economy…

What?! Is that a flip-flop? When you (and me and millions of others) are hurting, does that mean the economy is good?

So in all, though I don’t like Kerry either, it’s definitely anybody than four more years of Bush. He has made costly mistakes, ignored them, and compounded them. If you are concerned about our economy and security, then Bush is NOT the way to go as a matter of fact. He is the most targeted/hated leader in the world, and he has bankrupted the country.

 

[[Matt]]

On a more positive note; Saddam was removed from power.

only to be replaced by another dictator who will probably sieze power several years down the line.