<choke> Did he *really* say this????

[bungle bliss]

By Steve Holland

Washington - US President George Bush had a tough message on Wednesday for Iraqi militants attacking US troops - "Bring them on" - and said the US military presence was sufficient to deal with the attackers.

Bush spoke in the face of increasing American concern about the rising casualty toll. At least 23 US troops have been killed by hostile fire since Bush declared major combat operations over on May 1.

"There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there," Bush told reporters at the White House. "My answer is: Bring them on. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation."

Democratic leaders were sharply critical of the remark.

"I am shaking my head in disbelief. When I served in the army in Europe during World War II, I never heard any military commander - let alone the commander in chief - invite enemies to attack US troops," said New Jersey Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg.

Republican Richard Gephardt of Missouri, a Democratic presidential candidate, said: "I have a message for the president: 'Enough of the phony, macho rhetoric. We should be focused on a long-term security plan that reduces the danger to our military personnel.'"

more at link...
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=3&art_id=qw1057188605476B262&set_id=1

________________________________________

Ahem...yeah...INVITE THEIR ATTACKS ON US!! It's just like a video game, right? Or football... :mad: :mad: :mad:

That statement is the most mentally defunct thing I have every heard the man (monkey?) say.

And I have never felt sorrier for the people in our military. :(

I hate to say it, but right now I am wondering, what happened to the old days when people would get assassinated.

[Roddimus]

That's pretty irresponsible.

[Justin]

I'm sure the troops feel great about that one.

[superkool]

didn't 10 troops get attacked today?

way to have them bring it on, moron.

[186k\sec]

alls I have to say is that meat chunk has some huge elephantitus balls.
this has to be THE dummest thing I have ever heard ANY president say. To taking on the role of Mr.Touph Guy is not what our country, and troops need at the moment.. Antagonism isnt going to accomplish anything but raise the bar for more violence against us.. publiclly taunting our enemies is downright outrageous, and irresponsible,...

if we suffer a more frequent, or severe attacks now, . . then what will he say..
"OH yeah! - that didnt hurt...Hit me again.!"
its like listening to a 8yr. old in a schoolyard scuffle. .. . . .

what an elloquant man.

[Pler]

agreed 186/sec & everyone else...

The man obviously has a blantant disregard for the well being of our soldiers...

[Effendi]

.
And your either with us or against us.....dissent is UN-AMERICAN!!

We can take out ALL those SandNiggers..line them bastards up and just start shooting.....

BRING IT ON.......LET'S ROLL.........lol

FUCK American Troops...they should happily and Willingly go forth and die against the massed triad of Evil...If they show ANY sign of questioning what we order them to do, CourtMartial them and feel free to shoot a few of them to silence any other dissent. (King George)

America owns this motherFucking Planet so either get with us or we shall assume you are against us and take All necessary and appropriate action to silence you using all means necessary!!

Where are the RightWingNutz that always defend this disgrace to America.....lol. You will eat your arrogance in the next Year as we do ALL in our power to Remove the Traitor in the WhiteHouse. I don't really care WHO takes over the posituion as long as they have OUR (The American People's) best interest in mind.

As long as he is willing to committ American Lives to places and situations around the world we should NEVER be involved in, he is a Traitor to the American People. And should be SHOT!!

Scott!!

[Mike S]

What a bunch of thin skinned whining... oh give me a break..

Yaknow I'm gonna steal something from Ish here - Why don't you bedwetting whiners all jump in the back of this here waaaaaaaaaaaambulance and we can drive 'round town so you can commiserate with other like minded whiners.
Waaaaah bush said bring em on waaaaaah that might make da bad ol fanatics do something mean waaaaaaah.I hate bush
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.


Yeah - the idiots might do something stupid like step on infront of Brandons m-16 so he can lighten the load on the gene pool.

Fuck yeah bring em on.

MS

[seattle science]

The guy who was planning on shooting a US tank with an RPG out of his window, wasn't going to pull the trigger until he heard Bush say "bring them on."

[186k\sec]

Yaknow I'm gonna steal something from Ish here - Why don't you bedwetting whiners all jump in the back of this here waaaaaaaaaaaambulance and we can drive 'round town so you can commiserate with other like minded whiners.
Waaaaah bush said bring em on waaaaaah that might make da bad ol fanatics do something mean waaaaaaah.I hate bush
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Yeah - the idiots might do something stupid like step on infront of Brandons m-16 so he can lighten the load on the gene pool.

that is the weakest come back I have ever seen you write Mike,.
but its not surprising you again side with the wh policy arrogance, intimidation, and taunting, instead of articulate answers. 'bring it on' is what the troops say, not a president, you dolt.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Effendi
.
And your either with us or against us.....dissent is UN-AMERICAN!!

We can take out ALL those SandNiggers..line them bastards up and just start shooting.....

BRING IT ON.......LET'S ROLL.........lol

FUCK American Troops...they should happily and Willingly go forth and die against the massed triad of Evil...If they show ANY sign of questioning what we order them to do, CourtMartial them and feel free to shoot a few of them to silence any other dissent. (King George)

America owns this motherFucking Planet so either get with us or we shall assume you are against us and take All necessary and appropriate action to silence you using all means necessary!!

Where are the RightWingNutz that always defend this disgrace to America.....lol. You will eat your arrogance in the next Year as we do ALL in our power to Remove the Traitor in the WhiteHouse. I don't really care WHO takes over the posituion as long as they have OUR (The American People's) best interest in mind.

As long as he is willing to committ American Lives to places and situations around the world we should NEVER be involved in, he is a Traitor to the American People. And should be SHOT!!

Scott!!



And Scott shut the fuck up you freak.
Its people like you that give human beings in general a bad name. I mean granted this is NWTEKNO and granted everyone - well most people - get their jollies off by being over the top but you- man- you are a piece of work.

Tell ya what hot shot - why don't YOU put you money where your mouth is.. put your fanatic ass on a plane and go join the jihadists.
I mean ya go experience with explosives. Hell didn't they throw your ass out of the military for blowing up someone's car? Shit buddy - take the next logical step and learn to make the car blow up in front of an embassy.

Effendi- the voice of reason and logic.

In what alternate universe

MS

[Mike S]

Originally posted by 186k\sec


that is the weakest come back I have ever seen you write Mike,.
but its not surprising you again side with the wh policy arrogance, intimidation, and taunting, instead of articulate answers. 'bring it on' is what the troops say, not a president, you dolt.


Policy arrogance - who the fuck do you think your fooling with that clap trap 186. this is more of you and the other ancle biters yapping over more stupid shit because - suprise - you hate the person saing it.

Dont sit there and lie to me about your concern over policy arrogance.

fuck that.

This entire "I cant believe he said that" discussion is pathetic. It doesn't deserve any more than the retort you got.

Seriously -of all the things that can be discussed that relate to Iraq - THIS merits your attention? "Bring em on" Oh excuse me - maybe Bush should have emasculated his statement a little more so the limp wristed leftists could stomach it. Here let me loan you my backbone for the afternoon.

Fuckin A - whaaaaaaaaaaat ever.

If this entire discussion wasnt as pathetic as it was it would be down right hilarious.

Next.

MS

[kristinachilds]

Originally posted by Mike S
What a bunch of thin skinned whining... oh give me a break.. you're such a hard ass.

no whining here, i'm sure he was just (in his own "special" way) saying that the US is tougher than they are.

however, someone of bush's stature should exercise some discretion. ...or at least have the ability to. he is the president, after all.

christ.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by kristinachilds
you're such a hard ass.

no whining here, i'm sure he was just (in his own "special" way) saying that the US is tougher than they are.

however, someone of bush's stature should exercise some discretion. ...or at least have the ability to. he is the president, after all.

christ.

OR you've got a bunch of chattering brats reading so much into three words "bring em on" that they've got their buck skin thongs all bunched up.

Seriously... this is the STUPIDEST topic. Its stupid shit like this that propagate that "bed wetting liberal" stereotype.

MS

[seattle science]

These people would only be happy if the president had said something horribly gloomy which would lower troop morale, like "please stop attacking us, we can't take it anymore, we're really screwed now." It seems to me that saying 'bring them on' will only rouse and energize the troops.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by seattle science
These people would only be happy if the president had said something horribly gloomy which would lower troop morale, like "please stop attacking us, we can't take it anymore, we're really screwed now." It seems to me that saying 'bring them on' will only rouse and energize the troops.

I know Science.. But one would have to have a backbone to understand that kind of thinkiing.

MS

[Effendi]

Originally posted by Mike S

And Scott shut the fuck up you freak.

Hahahahahahhaha.....Is that sweat mikey?
did poor little mikey hear something that turned his ears red....

Its people like you that give human beings in general a bad name.

(yawn) stop copying old threads you wrote years ago, get original...if you can....lol

I mean granted this is NWTEKNO and granted everyone - well most people - get their jollies off by being over the top but you- man- you are a piece of work.

Well thank you...most of us think you are a self-righteous arrogant fuck also.

Tell ya what hot shot - why don't YOU put you money where your mouth is.. put your fanatic ass on a plane and go join the jihadists.

Hahahahahha..I don't have to get on a plane....the problem is right HERE...
YOU and people like you are the problem....
The marionettes in the world follow the money and it's illiterate fucks like you that provide it. In thought and in deed.

I mean ya go experience with explosives. Hell didn't they throw your ass out of the military for blowing up someone's car?

Hahahahahha...IF that's true....YOU are an ignorant stupidly brave bastard aren't you

Shit buddy - take the next logical step and learn to make the car blow up in front of an embassy.

Logical step?....whose embassy?
You are a sick traitorous individual who should be reported to the FBI for trying to create a reality where someone acts destructively against the United States.
You are NOT my Buddy.
MY "Buddies" and I fought against threats to the United States. I have not and would not fight for anything less, especially some pack of lies dripping in Oil. The United States is NOT the problem.....YOU and people like that putz in the whitehouse who are Stealing MY country are the problem. I have fought FOR America before, and I will fight FOR America again..especially if it involves removing people Like YOU who are the REAL Enemy of the The US Constitution!!

The threat is not some poor Arab living on a sea of Oil, the REAL threat is right here in America......No plane ticket needed thank you!!

Effendi- the voice of reason and logic.

Get used to it Punk, because there are alot more out there just like me that are just about tired of your lies and bullshit.

NO MORE AMERICAN LIVES!!
NO MORE AMERICAN MONEY!!

Scott!!

[burnt]

who are we inviting to "bring it"? soldiers of the Baath Republic? oh wait, there *IS* no more Baath Republic....so......um........citizens??? we're inviting civilian dissent???

sure, its one thing to be assertive, aggressive, defiant......its another thing to deliberately walk away from peace. from what I can see in news, whitehouse press briefings, and speeches, the man has no plans whatsoever to put a quick and professional end to the war he started with his pre-emptive attack.

one should stop terrorism, by killing the mantra. not by killing every dissident. I would think, that someone who starts a War......be that a war with a nation, a war on terrorism, or a war on drugs........you'd think that the goal of effective leadership would not be to "kill em all and let God sort em out", but rather, to end the war with as much positivity as possible, for both sides.

who does Bush plan to negotiate with, in order to create a truce or a cease-fire in Iraq, so that less of these Iraqi civilians continue to "bring it"? he doesn't even know who to negotiate with now that Saddam's been ousted...but rather than attempt to create a cease fire, he's inviting the civilians of the country he pre-emptively attacked, to "bring it on".

fucking...........dumb..........regardless of his mindset, he's failing to follow the basic rule of thumb that even my 6 year old understands. he's failing to "choose to use his good words when angry."

yea, its one thing, for a soldier to act tough and protect him/herself. but as kristina pointed out, its patently stupid for the leader of a large group of soldiers to project that same kind of toughness and unwillingness to compromise.

[186k\sec]

186. this is more of you and the other ancle biters yapping over more stupid shit because - suprise - you hate the person saing it.

Dont sit there and lie to me about your concern over policy arrogance
neat,
now my viewpoint on this makes me a liar?
keep clinging to the bogus notion my dissent is based out of "hate", Mike, it only prooves who the real liar is.
OR you've got a bunch of chattering brats reading so much into three words "bring em on" that they've got their buck skin thongs all bunched up.

Seriously... this is the STUPIDEST topic. Its stupid shit like this that propagate that "bed wetting liberal" stereotype.

I can tell when you loose control, Mike,
you're boy slips up , and again you fly off the handle at those who are critical.
you resort to insults and the now tiring MIKE S chest-beating routine..
why do you feel so desperate to discredit the valid concerns of other folks? how does disagreeing equate to being a 'brat' ? what he said was innapropriate for any head of state, thats why you dont hear presidents use 'bring it on' as a retort to a serious issue..

backbone..
yeah, whatever, comming from a person whom immediatley and with 101% consistancy, aligns himself with anything & everything this administration does, says, or threatens, without any question, is the most spineless bedwetter move i can think of.

[Mike S]

*Groans* (Takes gloves off)

186 - I'll admit yeah I lost control.. Laughing when I first read this thread.

In fact - and this is no lie - I had co-workers walking into my office wanting to know what's so damn funny.

Ok yeah- lost it .. I even had to run off to the little boys room before I wet myself.

Back to the present tho -

Here's some fact o backbone deficient one - the guy -in response to a question regarding the actions of some dead end ba'athist fanatics who - after hitting their knees and praying to God - get up and shoot at our peeps - said we aren't going to be deterred. "Bring em on" . Most of us with some sack quietly nodded our approval. You - on the other hand - are more concerned about offending or inflaming the fanatics.

Here lets spell out what we think about the fanatics and their sensibilities.

Fuck them. Die.

Now - you wanna have a Kumbaya moment with some people who -chances are don't even know what "bring em on" means - cool.

Let me remind you that - while your worried about their feelings they would love nothing more than to kill you - then move on to the women folk - and after brutally raping them - bludgeoning them to death with stones for adultery. OH and another important point Mr. -oh no I cant believe the president pissed off the fascists - these fascist bastards have been and continue to take pot shots at our people. some of whom are my friends.

So to you I say fuck you and your concern for how upset and offended the jihadists or the ba'ath fascist get when our President declares "bring em on"

Fuck yes bring em on - that way we can kill em faster and get our boys and girls home.

Get it got it good.
MS

[186k\sec]

So to you I say fuck you and your concern

Here's some fact o backbone deficient one

Fuck them. Die.

Get it got it good.


im begining to think you are meat chunk's speech writter.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by 186k\sec


I'm beginning to think you are meat chunk's speech writer.

meat chunk - yeah I can see through that statement that your ability to seriously perceive anything pertaining to his actions is .. shall we say .. inhibited.

What are you hate mongerers going to do when everything you wish for goes *poof* there's WMD, they guy gets re-elected.. I mean you're like a cult in the way you dogmatically cling to your hate... what are u going to do.. collectively drink some Kool-Aid and call it quits.

Seriously that how whacked out a lot of you come across.

MS

[burnt]

Mike, I'm just having a hard time understanding your logic. how can you, on one hand, claim to appreciate the fact that we "liberated" the civilians from questionable leadership, then 2 weeks later, encourage those same civilians to either step up and get shot, or shut the fuck up and deal with a um.........well, questionable leadership???

personally??? I'm not concerned about the Baath loyalists "feelings".....I've already made it very clear that I simply DO NOT GIVE A FUCK about the piles of Kurds in some other fucking corner of the world, while we've got Ken Lay, Arthur Andersen, and a dwindling economy to deal with.

plus.......call me crazy, call me a Conspiracy Theorist, but I'm seriously anticipating some crazy Economic Terrorism from Old Europe, via aggressive buyouts driven by their up-and-coming Euro.


what, you're gonna support wasting a buncha time dealing with some fucking crew of camel humpers "bringing it on", while our economy declines to the point where everyone's working for minimum at the UK-owned WalMart???

man, this shit's just getting old. seriously. fuck supporting my troops, muthafuckas need to hurry the fuck up. muthafuckas need to work smarter, not harder.

I'd rather support my fellow civilian......40% of whom agree, that "bring it on" is inappropriate.

go ahead and support the other 55% who agree with the Prez. go ahead and support the division that the terrorists have created in this nation. go ahead and argue harder, instead of smarter.



but the next time one of you fucking Repukes challenges a "liberal" to stop whining and instead suggest alternative solutions, I'm gonna re-direct you to my past statements.



seriously, why are we challenging the terrorists to "bring it on".....because they will............one at at time.......now, you know as well as I, that you catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar.

[Mike S]

Ya know what I think Scott - I think I detect a pang of jealousy. see you spent a good part of your young life crawling around god forsaken places, enacting policy of questionable value ..hell in retrospect we see that the focus should have always been on breaking the soviet bank. the jungles of central & south America would be just as they are if we'd a never bothered with em. The world would be the same today.

but these boys - the ones that are hanging their asses out over in Iraq - they're doing good. They're doing what another generation did in Europe and Japan .. and that bugs you. You're a glory hound. And there aint no glory in having gone to *sealed for national security* and done *sealed for national security* is there?

So you rant and vent and project you perceived inadequacies on what's going on.. its a shame. Cuz - even if you don't - some of us still appreciate what ya did.

MS

[Cedwyn]

untenably reckless.

for the love of god, will someone please duct-tape that fool's mouth shut before it's too late?

[Mike S]

Challenging the terrorist to bring it on.. u serious.

Hey burnt. We don't HAVE to challenge them to bring it on.. they plan to.

Oh- and a little sociology - they- respect machismo - not some sackless wonder who's been emasculated via hours of sensitivity training.

and I'll make it clear to you - I don't care about Ken Lay - I don't care about Enron I don't give a flying fuck about grandmas 401 k.. see peoples lives are waaaaay more important .. Not their financial lives but the basic breathing in and out kind.
You - I'm sorry to say - have become what people hate about Americans. Selfish and greedy if all you concern yourself with are issues of personal economics and are willfully blind to mass graves.

Let me expand on what I don't care about then.. I don't care about your opinion on Iraq. Nor bungles nor 186s.. if listening to you mean abandoning those people so you can be fat happy and comfy with a little more green in your pocket - fuck that and screw you.
Years ago We - along with the rest of the world - made this fucking mess - so you could be fat happy and comfy - now its time to clean it up - and you -whether you like it or not - are just gong to have to suffer through it.

So I suggest you suck it up.

Also - there aint no putting honey -with the vinegar that is fascism and terrorism. You wipe them out.

MS

[Pler]

Originally posted by Mike S
What a bunch of thin skinned whining... oh give me a break..

Yaknow I'm gonna steal something from Ish here - Why don't you bedwetting whiners all jump in the back of this here waaaaaaaaaaaambulance and we can drive 'round town so you can commiserate with other like minded whiners.
Waaaaah bush said bring em on waaaaaah that might make da bad ol fanatics do something mean waaaaaaah.I hate bush
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.


Yeah - the idiots might do something stupid like step on infront of Brandons m-16 so he can lighten the load on the gene pool.

Fuck yeah bring em on.

MS

How dare you call objection to this sort of unprofessional, unaermerican speech "whining"...as a former infantryman, with friends still in the Army and in Iraq I find your assanine comments extremely offensive, especially for one who's never served his country or put his own well being on the line and, at the becon call of the country and powers that be.

It illustrates in our president a lack of concern for the safety of our soldiers, and thats fucking serious...all americans concerned with the lives of our soldiers should find his comments offensive. The fact that you cannot drop your partisan defence for a moment and analysise objectively the gravity of this sort of unamerican attitude wich the president displayed suggests that you too, do not fully understand the sacrifice our men in uniform give...you're no patriot

[Mike S]

A less thin skinned take on "bring em on" ..

"BRING THEM ON": No, I don't think it's merely rhetoric. One of the many layers of the arguments for invading Iraq focused on the difficulties of waging a serious war on terror from a distant remove. Being based in Iraq helpsus notonly because of actual bases; but because the American presence there diverts terrorist attention away from elsewhere. By confronting them directly in Iraq, we get to engage them in a military setting that plays to our strengths rather than to theirs'. Continued conflict in Iraq, in other words, needn't always be bad news. It may be a sign that we are drawing the terrorists out of the woodwork and tackling them in the open."

Andrew Sullivan.

Of course in order for one to perceive something like this you'd have to first fully understand the war on terror and how Iraq ties into this.. seeing how most people around here cant see past their petty Bush hate into any qualified reasoning regarding the war in Iraq and the war on terror its no wonder they come to the conclusions they do and support neither the war on terror or the war in Iraq.

MS

[burnt]

ah good! a response.......

well, we'll agree to disagree about whether or not my own livelihood is more important than the lives of - well, basically, a nation full of haters. selfish? yes...*shrug* - I represent a minority of white middle class males, the Geek minority. its an unrecognized minority. so I'm used to bitches, Jews, camel humpers, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc hating on me because "white people done oppressed" someone. some jock beats up some blacky, the blacky carries a grudge, and exacts his revenge, not on powerful, strapping, successful white American males, but rather? on easy targets, who, ultimately, are not *really* Whiteys, just skinny white geeks.

I'm also used to powerful white upper class American men hating on me, beating me up after shop class, and fucking my girlfriend. I've been jaded since 5th grade.

so I really don't give a fuck if Iraq has a bad perception of that asshole named "burnt", and I really don't give a fuck if someone's "picking on" or gassing mad Kurds........its fucking tough all over, and I got scars to prove it.

I just can't afford, fiscally or psychologically, for Iraq to have a negative perception of the rest of these muthafuckas in this wonderfully diverse nation I live in. I need to either work for, or fuck, the locals here in America hating on skinny white geeks like me. so the livelihoods of other Americans matter to me.

terrorists??? how does their day-to-day living affect me? oh yea, it doesn't. unless they hate everyone *else* over here, then it becomes unprofitable.

hence, my decision to advocate as much "terrorist-appeasement" as I can......I can't afford terrorists to smart bomb my employer, and I'd rather they didn't spray anthrax on my girlfriend.......yea, I know, its selfish, but, again, I just don't give a fuck. =\
****************************
but I must disagree with the notion that you cannot catch a network army without honey.

check this (http://www.nwtekno.org/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57440) thread out. it seems to me, that every hacker has been challenged to give it their all. immediately following this weekend, network administrators will be challenged to give it their all, in reading log files, tracing paths of penetration, and catching "hackers" ......

see, to me, "hackers" are about as organized as "terrorists" or "drug dealers"......there is no leadership, so there's no way to destroy the organizations fundamentally, or from the top down. indeed, you *do* catch them with honey - its the only documented effective method! hence, the term, "honeypot".

inviting them to "bring it on" only incites more violence. inviting them into a private meeting to discuss their feelings............hell, now *that's* an effective round-up!

this might be a little over your head, what with the whole "raver from Seattle" mindset going on, but I'd think that a Texan rancher could grasp the concept pretty easily...

[What time?]

Originally posted by Effendi
.
Where are the RightWingNutz that always defend this disgrace to America.....lol.
Scott!!

I don't agree with what he said at all. I think it was arrogant and meat-headed. This is a suprise to you? Scott!!!: Your enthusiasm is sometimes scary.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Pler


How dare you call objection to this sort of unprofessional, unaermerican speech "whining"...as a former infantryman, with friends still in the Army and in Iraq I find your assanine comments extremely offensive, especially for one who's never served his country or put his own well being on the line and, at the becon call of the country and powers that be.

It illustrates in our president a lack of concern for the safety of our soldiers, and thats fucking serious...all americans concerned with the lives of our soldiers should find his comments offensive. The fact that you cannot drop your partisan defence for a moment and analysise objectively the gravity of this sort of unamerican attitude wich the president displayed suggests that you too, do not fully understand the sacrifice our men in uniform give...you're no patriot

I'm glad your offended Pler. Really. I find your mentality and mealy mouthed spineless approach to this revolting. I - as do my friends sitting in the sand over in that oven - hope that these rag headed islamofascists & their ba'ath party dead end buddies take the bait and what we have in the Iraqi desert is the terrorist equivalent of the mariannas turkey shoot (ww2 -ref). then when its all over and the bodies are rotting Pler - you and the whining brigades can go sensitivelly forth and bury the fuckers.

Then when the bastards are all dead we can bring our people home - have a big parade for them and maybe you ass holes will protest it and assholes like me will watch as your asses get beat.


I'm not worried about the well being of my buddies over there - they can handle themselves quite proficiently. If you really were a soldier and not a cook or a driver or a desk jockey - you'd understand this.
They on the other hand are worried about my mental wellbeing over here from having to put up with wankers like you.
.

Piss off Pler
MS

[Pler]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike S
A less thin skinned take on "bring em on" ..

"BRING THEM ON": No, I don't think it's merely rhetoric. One of the many layers of the arguments for invading Iraq focused on the difficulties of waging a serious war on terror from a distant remove. Being based in Iraq helpsus notonly because of actual bases; but because the American presence there diverts terrorist attention away from elsewhere. By confronting them directly in Iraq, we get to engage them in a military setting that plays to our strengths rather than to theirs'. Continued conflict in Iraq, in other words, needn't always be bad news. It may be a sign that we are drawing the terrorists out of the woodwork and tackling them in the open."

Andrew Sullivan.

Thats theory is simply an absurd attempt to justify this conflict after stated motives have been and/or are being proven to have been false.

the first problem with that theory, is that we already were engaged in the theater, Afgahnistan. Had there been a desire for terrorist groups to target american soldiers, and engage them in a convetional struggle, they could have, and it would have happened there, not secular arab state opposed to these fundamentalist terror groups.
secondly the US isn't combatting Al Queda or other anti-american terror groups in Iraq in any signifcant levels worthy of the claim that the war is distracting terrorists from attacking the US. Thats entirely conjecture, and not supported, as I see it, by any of the events we see unfolding right now.
It's evident that Arab volunteers are comming into Iraq in order to engage our soldiers, but as to whether these units are organized members of terror groups, specifically Al Queda or Islamic Jihad etc, and not simply arab volunteers is not known. Washington maintains it is Iraqis attacking our soldiers btw...Ba'ath loyalists.


Of course in order for one to perceive something like this you'd have to first fully understand the war on terror and how Iraq ties into this..

Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror...and since you claimed it does, how about you prove it?...rather than simply assert it's so without bothering to backup your comments

seeing how most people around here cant see past their petty Bush hate into any qualified reasoning regarding the war in Iraq and the war on terror its no wonder they come to the conclusions they do and support neither the war on terror or the war in Iraq.

I don't suppose I should point out how hypocritical this comment is?

[Mike S]

the arguments been made over and over - and has been shown via Afghanistan that there are countries willing and able to enable terrorist activities. Its also been shown that Iraq had several installations designed to train in terrorist tactics. Hell they even had a terrorist compound in n. Iraq.

What should be don't Pler - since you have nothing but opinion and I have damning circumstantial evidence - is that you should prove its not connected to the war on terror. Really all you have is your opinion - that of a pissed of fringe fuck who upset no one gave a rats ass about his useless opinion on the war in Iraq and we did the right thing and invaded.
so - smart guy - bust out the Intel -prove your point. or shut the fuck up.

Prove Saddam would have never given an islamofascist a WMD and that fascist would never have used it on us.
MS

[Pler]

Originally posted by Mike S


I'm glad your offended Pler. Really. I find your mentality and mealy mouthed spineless approach to this revolting. I - as do my friends sitting in the sand over in that oven - hope that these rag headed islamofascists & their ba'ath party dead end buddies take the bait and what we have in the Iraqi desert is the terrorist equivalent of the mariannas turkey shoot (ww2 -ref). then when its all over and the bodies are rotting Pler - you and the whining brigades can go sensitivelly forth and bury the fuckers.

Then when the bastards are all dead we can bring our people home - have a big parade for them and maybe you ass holes will protest it and assholes like me will watch as your asses get beat.


I'm not worried about the well being of my buddies over there - they can handle themselves quite proficiently. If you really were a soldier and not a cook or a driver or a desk jockey - you'd understand this.
They on the other hand are worried about my mental wellbeing over here from having to put up with wankers like you.
.

Piss off Pler
MS

I doubt very much you have spoken with any of your "friends in the sand" since the war...nor have you discussed the issue of Bush's comments...

Then when the bastards are all dead we can bring our people home - have a big parade for them and maybe you ass holes will protest it and assholes like me will watch as your asses get beat.

Do I appear to be the sort of person that would protest the return of our troops? I've advocate their immediate return, and argued that they never should have left. This war, and this administration are a disservice to those heros...And I know many are feeling awfully disgruntled over the way they've been treated over there by the government, and those sentiments are no doubt exacerbated when they hear this type of insensitive, callous speech...it's inprecedented and utterly devoid of concern for their safety.
I understand the mentality of a soldier, you don't, I was one, you're never were...never will be. My concerns and comments are a result of my concern for them...not myself. Thusly your comment regarding the "mentality" of our men is entiurely pointless. The issue isn't whether or not they can handle themselves...but rather, whether the government and commander in chief care at all about their well being. These comments suggest that the answer is no...

If and when you respond...try to respond like a mature adult. I didn't insult you, don't be a dick to me...you don't have to act like a little bitch all the time...

[Pler]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike S
the arguments been made over and over - and has been shown via Afghanistan that there are countries willing and able to enable terrorist activities. Its also been shown that Iraq had several installations designed to train in terrorist tactics. Hell they even had a terrorist compound in n. Iraq.

Any nation is "able" to aid terror, that isn't a justification for invasion and occupation. Furthermore Northern Iraq was under the control of Kurdish seperatists, not Baghdad.

What should be don't Pler - since you have nothing but opinion and I have damning circumstantial evidence - is that you should prove its not connected to the war on terror. Really all you have is your opinion - that of a pissed of fringe fuck who upset no one gave a rats ass about his useless opinion on the war in Iraq and we did the right thing and invaded.
so - smart guy - bust out the Intel -prove your point. or shut the fuck up.[

Prove Saddam would have never given an islamofascist a WMD and that fascist would never have used it on us.
MS

Holy fuck...your asking me to prove a negative?...asking me to prove that there was no threat, to counter the erroneous claim that there was a threat. Do you understand anything about the scientific method or the guidlines of debate...your demand is akin to me accusing you of conspiracy to commit murder...then responding to your protests othwise with "well then disprove that you weren't conspiring"

The burden of proof lies on the accusers...and as of yet, there is no evidence suggesting any of the claims made by the Bush administration are true....we went to war over a threat we couldn't prove existed.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Pler


I doubt very much you have spoken with any of your "friends in the sand" since the war...nor have you discussed the issue of Bush's comments...

Then when the bastards are all dead we can bring our people home - have a big parade for them and maybe you ass holes will protest it and assholes like me will watch as your asses get beat.

Do I appear to be the sort of person that would protest the return of our troops? I've advocate their immediate return, and argued that they never should have left. This war, and this administration are a disservice to those heros...And I know many are feeling awfully disgruntled over the way they've been treated over there by the government, and those sentiments are no doubt exacerbated when they hear this type of insensitive, callous speech...it's inprecedented and utterly devoid of concern for their safety.
I understand the mentality of a soldier, you don't, I was one, you're never were...never will be. My concerns and comments are a result of my concern for them...not myself. Thusly your comment regarding the "mentality" of our men is entiurely pointless. The issue isn't whether or not they can handle themselves...but rather, whether the government and commander in chief care at all about their well being. These comments suggest that the answer is no...

If and when you respond...try to respond like a mature adult. I didn't insult you, don't be a dick to me...you don't have to act like a little bitch all the time...


Then pler - as is typical - you display very little knowledge of much.

Appear - I wont say WHY this poped into my head *evilgrin* but you appear to be the sort of boy that found himself taped upside down to a flagpole nude after getting up and giving an impassioned speech to a bunch of men about how insensitive the boss was for using such bad words.
Good god you are a dainty thing aren't you. Tell ya what - I'm quite sure the big boys and big girls over in Iraq have more on their mind than "bring em on" .. and whether or not its gonna make the bad ol terrorists upset. see - unlike you who seem to have perfected the art of propelling yourself to and fro with head plunged in ass - they have an idea that the terrorists and the bad ol ba'ath regulars are pissed already. Both of em have lost their base of operation in two - count em - two countries. AND if Iran goes into general revolt that might make three- These people are pissed Pler. And as they get their ass kicked from one end of the globe to the next they are going tobe more pissed. And no Texan goin "bring em on" is gonna make em anymore pissed.. besides genius - how many of the dumb fuckers speak English well enough to understand 'bring em on" ? and what is the literal Arab translation of "bring em on"

pler - for what ever reason you just bring out the bastard in me
MS

[Mike S]

Pler - the circumstantial evidence is there -
prove a negatoive .. no .. not if ther is evidence pointing to it positivelly being so.

Prove that Saddam would not have given a terrorist a WMD and prove that this concern was not part of the thinking behind invading Iraq.

Prove that this circumstantial evidence isnt what it seems and prove that - your opinion that the war in iraq and the war on terrorism are not connected - is true.

Prove it

MS

[seattle science]

Originally posted by Pler


I doubt very much you have spoken with any of your "friends in the sand" since the war...nor have you discussed the issue of Bush's comments...

Then when the bastards are all dead we can bring our people home - have a big parade for them and maybe you ass holes will protest it and assholes like me will watch as your asses get beat.

Do I appear to be the sort of person that would protest the return of our troops? I've advocate their immediate return, and argued that they never should have left. This war, and this administration are a disservice to those heros...And I know many are feeling awfully disgruntled over the way they've been treated over there by the government, and those sentiments are no doubt exacerbated when they hear this type of insensitive, callous speech...it's inprecedented and utterly devoid of concern for their safety.
I understand the mentality of a soldier, you don't, I was one, you're never were...never will be. My concerns and comments are a result of my concern for them...not myself. Thusly your comment regarding the "mentality" of our men is entiurely pointless. The issue isn't whether or not they can handle themselves...but rather, whether the government and commander in chief care at all about their well being. These comments suggest that the answer is no...

If and when you respond...try to respond like a mature adult. I didn't insult you, don't be a dick to me...you don't have to act like a little bitch all the time...

The troops over there are disgruntled over our government, specifically our President? haha. If they're disgruntled, they're disgruntled over the people on the homefront like you who are rooting for the terrorists and Islamist fanatics. And don't even try to claim some "I just want to bring the troops home" horseshit, like you actually give a pig's ass about them, instead of simply wishing for the US to fail in every step we take.

We got people over there getting fired at, and this guy pulls out the bedwetter classic: "insensitive." Military modus operandi: when things get rough, you don't tell the troops that all is doomed. You tell them to fight. Hence, Bush's comment.

[Pler]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike S



Then pler - as is typical - you display very little knowledge of much.

Appear - I wont say WHY this poped into my head *evilgrin* but you appear to be the sort of boy that found himself taped upside down to a flagpole nude after getting up and giving an impassioned speech to a bunch of men about how insensitive the boss was for using such bad words. Good god you are a dainty thing aren't you. Tell ya what - I'm quite sure the big boys and big girls over in Iraq have more on their mind than "bring em on" .. and whether or not its gonna make the bad ol terrorists upset.

I'm a 205lbs former SHARP, ex-paratrooper...who runs three miles and lifts weights literally everyday...no one tapes me to shit...I think your just confused becuase I'm not an asshole.
I don't mean to get in some kind of childish pissing contest or make it sound like I think I'm some kind of badass...but I didn't want there to be any mistaking my opinion as being the result of some sort of pacifistic, or timid personality.



see - unlike you who seem to have perfected the art of propelling yourself to and fro with head plunged in ass - they have an idea that the terrorists and the bad ol ba'ath regulars are pissed already. Both of em have lost their base of operation in two - count em - two countries. AND if Iran goes into general revolt that might make three- These people are pissed Pler. And as they get their ass kicked from one end of the globe to the next they are going tobe more pissed. And no Texan goin "bring em on" is gonna make em anymore pissed.. besides genius - how many of the dumb fuckers speak English well enough to understand 'bring em on" ? and what is the literal Arab translation of "bring em on"

genius - The issue is more over the sign of lack of respect and thought for our men in the field...than it is with this comment inciting attacks

pler - for what ever reason you just bring out the bastard in me
MS

Yeah, and I still act civi inspite of your bullshit...grow the fuck up

[Cedwyn]

but bush did *not* encourage our troops...he, in an absurd fit of unprofessional bravado, encouraged our enemies to attack.

[Pler]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike S
Pler - the circumstantial evidence is there -
prove a negatoive .. no .. not if ther is evidence pointing to it positivelly being so.

thats the thing..there is no evidence of Baghdad colluding with al-queda, thusly I can't disprove it.

Theres no evidence of an immediate dangers by way of Iraqi WMD...so I can't disprove that

What there is evidence of however, are lies and mistruths being presented as fact by this administration...from the falsified niger documents regarding iraqi attempts at obtaining nuclear materials...to the decade old and plagurized college thesis passed off as a current assessment of Iraqi capabilities....to the countless unproven claims: from iraqi uav's to stated knowledge and evidence regarding their nuclear, chemical and biological programs...and comments stating evidence of collusion with al queda.

Doubting the validity of this conflict is not beyond reason...and if one feels this war is not justified, there is no other logical recourse but to oppose it.



again, [B] you are asking me to prove a negative remember my analogy? think about the irrationality of what you are asking me to "disprove"...

Prove that this circumstantial evidence isnt what it seems and prove that - your opinion that the war in iraq and the war on terrorism are not connected - is true.

Prove it

If there is no evidence of Iraqi-alqueda collusion..or collusion with anyother anti-american terror groups...then one must conclude that no such union exists...and therefore Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror...as it is not engaged in terrorist activity

[Pler]

Originally posted by seattle science


The troops over there are disgruntled over our government, specifically our President? haha. If they're disgruntled, they're disgruntled over the people on the homefront like you who are rooting for the terrorists and Islamist fanatics. And don't even try to claim some "I just want to bring the troops home" horseshit, like you actually give a pig's ass about them, instead of simply wishing for the US to fail in every step we take.

We got people over there getting fired at, and this guy pulls out the bedwetter classic: "insensitive." Military modus operandi: when things get rough, you don't tell the troops that all is doomed. You tell them to fight. Hence, Bush's comment.

Read a newspaper sometime...

[bungle bliss]

Wow.

First of all, if this thread doesn't get the lot of you with brains to actually put these uneducated asshats on ignore once and for all, then I pity the valuable time you waste spent arguing with them.

Secondly, there's no argument here- if Hillary Clinton was president and said "Bring them on" in regard to attacks on our soldiers, WHAT do you think THE IDIOT RIGHT-WING's response would be??? THINK ABOUT IT- If you EVEN need more than five seconds to think about the answer to that question...

Bush can do *anything he wants* and they will think it's A-ok!! Don't you guys get it yet??? The righties on this board are INCAPABLE of CRITICAL THINKING.

Arguing with their diatribe is therefore useless, and always will be.

The fact that they are convinced an idiot like Bush is always right is enough to show the rest of us what kind of mental levels we are dealing with.

The point of this thread wasn't to start a left/right debate about whether or not what Bush said was wrong- any human with three pounds of gray matter in their skull knows it was wrong. Yes, it's funny to watch those fools in denial who think what he said was "jes fine", but the amusement isn't worth fifty responses explaining to these dumbasses WHY IT WAS WRONG. If they don't get it, that's their problem. If they denying it for the sake of a debate, they are wasting their time, because there is no debate here.

The point of it was to make sure everybody knew he said it. This isn't about being left, right, or upside down, it's about our president being WRONG.

Anyway-

This beast Bush needs more than duct-tape on his mouth. He needs to be out of office, he is unable to correctly assess the impact of his words and is now a national security threat. This is his mindset: attacks on our soldiers? Bring them on. Terrorist attacks? Bring them on.

Sometimes I can't tell the difference between Bush and the terrorist loonies we are supposed to be getting rid of.

Yes, he needs those attacks on us and our soldiers as justification to carry out his completely unAmerican PNAC plan. But- the rest of us don't have shit to do with PNAC and WE are the ones who will end up killed, us and our loved ones!!!

Sorry Bush, I have a friend I've known since high school over in the ME, whom I haven't heard from in weeks (months?). I am worried, and I would like the attacks to stop, I don't want MORE attacks to BE BROUGHT ON!!!!

SO PLEASE DUMBYA, FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THE TROOPS OVER THERE FIGHTING, SHUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Effendi]

Originally posted by Mike S
Ya know what I think Scott - I think I detect a pang of jealousy. see you spent a good part of your young life crawling around god forsaken places, enacting policy of questionable value ..hell in retrospect we see that the focus should have always been on breaking the soviet bank. the jungles of central & south America would be just as they are if we'd a never bothered with em. The world would be the same today.

OK, lets go on the premise that maybe I owe you $100 for the session doc...but if what you suggest has any validity to it, than maybe you might understand WHY I feel the way I do...WHY I am so against unnecessary loss of American lives in situations where our presence (in the long run) proves more harmful than helpful.

It's almost funny in a way..(actually kind of disgusting) how people like myself are accused by people incapable of thinking past suppertime, of being Anti-American, Saddam loving and all the rest of the inacurate drivel thought up by "Real" haters. When in FACT, there are those of us who HAVE been there and HAVE done that and KNOW that the only real thanks we shall ever recieve will be delivered in the form of a bullet in the back of the head while we are in the market buying a CD.

I hate being called Liberal because I'm NOT!!
I hate being called Anti-War because I'm NOT!!

It's YOUR people who gave the Ultimatum of either being "with you or against you".
FUCK YOU Mr. bush for Alienating true Patriotic Americans.
You will get what you deserve!!

but these boys - the ones that are hanging their asses out over in Iraq - they're doing good.

Define good.
I agree fully that they are doing the job demanded of them to the best of their ability. I disagree that they are doing "Good" in the big picture....nothing personal!!

They're doing what another generation did in Europe and Japan .. and that bugs you.

A BOLD Faced LIE!!
They are NOT doing what our Grandfathers did in Europe, Hitler clearly attacked numerous soveriegn countries as well as our Allies and it was Obvious that should he fully conquor Europe, America was but an Ocean away.
Those brave troops truely WERE defending America!!
No matter how you wrap and ribbon this war, there is just NO WAY you can compare the defense of the Homeland with an Oil Grab!!

You're a glory hound. And there aint no glory in having gone to *sealed for national security* and done *sealed for national security* is there?

No!!

So you rant and vent and project you perceived inadequacies on what's going on..

Maybe so, but it really sucks loosing someone you love for No good reason.

its a shame. Cuz - even if you don't - some of us still appreciate what ya did.
MS
:eek: :rolleyes: :eek: Thank You....

Scott.....stunned!!

[AthenA]

"The fact that they are convinced an idiot like Bush is always right is enough to show the rest of us what kind of mental levels we are dealing with."

And the scary thing about that statement is that a fair share of the voting public might disagree.

I don't know....we're talking about a guy who managed to worm his way into the Texas National Guard as a young man, and when it came time for Vietnam, he was otherwise occupied. Yet, he thinks he's the man when he can land on a military ship that's coming back from battle and give some bullshit speech. The military members in my family were quite offended. What does he know about battle? What does he know about the best thing for the troops?

I don't know....what bothers me the most is how we portray those that are doing what they can to fight our troops. I'm sorry, I don't care for Bush. But If China were to decide that he is unfit and needs to be removed, which involved tanks rolling down my street and troops killing my friends and family, I'd "bring it on" with every fiber of my being. These people have the RIGHT to defend their country, much more than we have the right to be there. Furthermore, US troops screw up. A lot. We all remember what happened in Yugoslavia.....I had family and friends there. I suffered great loss at the hands of wreckless American soldiers. They DO kill innocents, and not always by accident. Just the idea that so many other families are now being destroyed at the hands of american troops makes me sick and brings a tear to my eyes.

And sure, I uderstand that that's the very nature of war. But jesus...let's not make it any worse than it already is.

[Effendi]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/BushArrest.jpg

[Nukegrrrl]

Originally posted by Mike S
What a bunch of thin skinned whining... oh give me a break..

Yaknow I'm gonna steal something from Ish here - Why don't you bedwetting whiners all jump in the back of this here waaaaaaaaaaaambulance and we can drive 'round town so you can commiserate with other like minded whiners.
Waaaaah bush said bring em on waaaaaah that might make da bad ol fanatics do something mean waaaaaaah.I hate bush
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.


Yeah - the idiots might do something stupid like step on infront of Brandons m-16 so he can lighten the load on the gene pool.

Fuck yeah bring em on.

MS That's funny, coming from the most prolific whiner on the whole dang board. As Orwell said, "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." It is not a right reserved expressly for you, Mike.

[burnt]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/03/bush.comment/index.html

But Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the Republican chairman of that committee, defended Bush.

"What he said is very clear to me," Warner said. "That was a message to the troops that 'you've got the right stuff, and that you're there to stay, and I'm confident in the coalition forces.' "

but....b-b-b-b-but, Senator Warner....weren't we supposed to just be in, then out, and let the *Iraqis* run their own nation?

prolly just another misunderstanding, slip of the tongue, type statement tho...

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Pler
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike S
Pler - the circumstantial evidence is there -
prove a negatoive .. no .. not if ther is evidence pointing to it positivelly being so.

thats the thing..there is no evidence of Baghdad colluding with al-queda, thusly I can't disprove it.

Theres no evidence of an immediate dangers by way of Iraqi WMD...so I can't disprove that

What there is evidence of however, are lies and mistruths being presented as fact by this administration...from the falsified niger documents regarding iraqi attempts at obtaining nuclear materials...to the decade old and plagurized college thesis passed off as a current assessment of Iraqi capabilities....to the countless unproven claims: from iraqi uav's to stated knowledge and evidence regarding their nuclear, chemical and biological programs...and comments stating evidence of collusion with al queda.

Doubting the validity of this conflict is not beyond reason...and if one feels this war is not justified, there is no other logical recourse but to oppose it.



again, [B] you are asking me to prove a negative remember my analogy? think about the irrationality of what you are asking me to "disprove"...

Prove that this circumstantial evidence isnt what it seems and prove that - your opinion that the war in iraq and the war on terrorism are not connected - is true.

Prove it

If there is no evidence of Iraqi-alqueda collusion..or collusion with anyother anti-american terror groups...then one must conclude that no such union exists...and therefore Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror...as it is not engaged in terrorist activity



OK Pler I'll quitfucking around & being rambunctious and be serious.

So what it comes down to is what I mentioned before - Opinions.

You cant prove there's no collusion due to a lack of evidence at you disposal or a perceived lack of credibility in the evidence presented.
Its not so much getting you to prove a negative its getting you to admit you don't know. You don't know that there was contact between Iraq and al qeada - the government claims was but due to your politics - nothing more - you disregard that evidence as no being credible.
I'll take it at face value just like I'll take what you say about you at face value. I've got no reason to not believe either.
You also cant say with any certainty that having been given the opportunity the Saddam would not have passed on bio - or chem WMD OR nuclear technology to a party interested in using it on us. there is evidence that chemicals confiscated in a raid last winter on a terror cell in the UK came from Iraq. Why wouldn't they give it to someone else?
And why wait till its used to find out its been done.
Its an ironic twist that the same people who went off on Bush about not putting the pieces together in time and preventing the 9-11 attacks NOW attack bush for - as far as the administration is concerned - putting the pieces together and preventing an attack of an infinitely greater magnitude from occurring. I'm not saying you fall into this same category Pler but these are the same people who then - as now - insist this is all about oil yet in being so convinced fail to do the "moral calculus" involved in such an act..meaning that if we were of a mind to take acountry over for oil - and the administration was morally bankrupt enough to do it - then to cut to the chase - we'd just annex Alberta.
Or equatorial guinea.. you get my drift.

Back on track tho -

One thing I think you and many others miss when looking at a war on terror is that its not just a war on the terrorists but a war on where they come from. Now seeing that its not so much a country but an ideology that takes advantage of certain environments - Its only logical that besides eliminating the terrororists themselves its imperative that we eliminate the environments that spawn them. And here's where the application of force is tricky and enters the realm of the theoretical.

Bare with me - I know you know this but I'm going to try and articulate it anyway for those who don't or refuse to acknowledge it.

The sort of extremism that converts normal people to extremists thrives in an atmosphere of hopelessness. Failed or repressive states are fertile ground for both.

As demonstrated in Afghanistan we can go into a failed state and root out the cancer there.. but what do you do about repressive regimes.
go in and take them all out by force. Nice thought but not possible even for us. Subvert them from the inside? Sure. but that takes willing and organized subversive elements you WANT to work with inside the country. And - as with most oppressive regimes - subversives don't last long. So what? Subvert them from the outside? Absolutely. and its something we have experience with in our efforts to undermine the Soviet bloc during the cold war. To paraphrase a professor of mine from waaaay back - Liberalization is like candy - give those who don't have it a taste and pretty soon their gonna want a candy store of their own. Enter Iraq. Rouge, aggressor state. Oppressive murderous regime. In violation of cease fire and a pile of UN mandates regarding WMD disarmament. Also located right smack in the middle of the worlds most oppressively, hopeless neighborhood - or if you like - the worlds terrorist incubator.

Low hanging fruit begging to be conveniently picked.

Pick it.

Then plant a liberalized Arab state in its place. And do and spend what is necessary to make sure it is a success. That combined with a successful Palestinian state as well as a liberalized Iran (hoping the revolution ignites there) can - and hopefully will - be the impetus to force liberal change in the region. Remove hopelessness, remove the focus on the Arab/Israeli conflict. INVEST HEAVILY in the infrastructure and education of the region. All the while leaning on the regimes - heavily - to recognize the rights of their people. Its a lot to ask for and its a long, expensive process but THAT is how you win the war on terror.

Now do you understand Iraq's connection to it?

Transformation of the region I believe is the term the administration used over and over - but is conveniently forgotten by those who - due to their hate for Bush - oppose this war on terror of which Iraq was just a battle.

Long winded and wandered a bit Pler - sorry - what say you?

MS

[Mike S]

Originally posted by burnt
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/03/bush.comment/index.html



but....b-b-b-b-but, Senator Warner....weren't we supposed to just be in, then out, and let the *Iraqis* run their own nation?

prolly just another misunderstanding, slip of the tongue, type statement tho...

Burnt we are still in both Japan and Germany - what makes you think this will be any different?

The administration - to my knowledge - didn't give any time lines other than it will take as long as it takes - the ONLY people who said it would be an in and out affair were the pundits - and how correct have any of them been regarding this?
Hell you've got the same pundits calling this a Vietnam style quagmire when we've lost 200 people in this conflict and Vietnam we lost 500 people A DAY and were in there with no clear political objective. Mmmk. I know this goes against conventional wisdom here at NWTEKINO where a bunch of raving, leftists claim to have the world figured out - but ya might want to take the administration at face value on this one. We're going to be there as long as it takes.

And that's a good thing.

MS

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Nukegrrrl
That's funny, coming from the most prolific whiner on the whole dang board. As Orwell said, "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." It is not a right reserved expressly for you, Mike.


Yes Nukegrrrl and I believe Orwell was speaking of intelligent critique. not a bunch of rabid haters reading so much into three words spoken by the "beast bush" that due to their hatefilled, overactive imaginations they've drawn from "bring em on" that waves of angry islamo fascists and their ba'ath brotheren are going to now swarm outa the hills and attack mercilessly. Putting our soldiers in danger.

Its ridiculous and being such it deserves nothing but ridicule. To dignify something of this nature with any sort of rational discussion would do a disservice to rational discussion everywhere.


have a happy 4th
MS

[Mike S]

This was written in 2002 so there's a couple here that have been disputed - yet not disproven.


1990s: SUDAN: AL-TOURABI ARRANGES FOR BIN LADEN TO MEET IRAQI
AGENT AL-HIJAZI, WHO WOULD EVENTUALLY HEAD IRAQI INTELLIGENCE

During the early 1990s, Sudan's Sheikh Hassan al-Tourabi of the
Islamic National Front arranged meetings between bin Laden and
Iraqi Intelligence officials. Bin Laden met with Faruq al-
Hijazi, an Iraqi intelligence agent in the Sudan who would later
head Iraqi intelligence for Saddam Hussein. There would be later
meetings as well in 1994 and 1995.- Findlaw, Ashton, et al. v.
al Qaeda

1992: ZAWAHIRI MET WITH IRAQI AGENTS IN BAGHDAD OVER SEVERAL DAYS

Upon information and belief, there have been numerous meetings
between IRAQI Intelligence agents and high-ranking al Qaeda
terrorists to plan terror attacks. Once such meeting occurred in
1992, when Zawahiri (Egyptian Islamic Jihad leader and al Qaeda
officer) met with Iraqi Intelligence agents in Baghdad, Iraq
over several days. An Iraqi serving with the Taliban who fled
Afghanistan in the fall of 2001, was captured in Kurdistan and
has corroborated this meeting and confirmed that Iraqi contacts
with al Qaeda began in 1992. - Findlaw, Ashton, et al. v. al
Qaeda

1994: BIN LADEN MEETS IRAQI INTELLIGENCE AGENTS IN SUDAN

Bin Laden again met with Iraqi intelligence secret service
director Faruq al-Hijazi agreed to work together on terrorist
projects directed against the U.S. - Findlaw, Ashton, et al. v.
al Qaeda

1995: BIN LADEN MEETS IRAQI INTELLIGENCE AGENTS IN SUDAN

Bin Laden again met with Iraqi intelligence officers in 1994 and
1995 in the Sudan. At these meetings, bin-Laden and Iraqi
intelligence secret service director Faruq al-Hijazi agreed to
work together on terrorist projects directed against the U.S. -
Findlaw, Ashton, et al. v. al Qaeda

1996 - 2001: BIN LADEN, TALIBAN, IRAQ MUTUAL ASSISTANCE

From 1996 until 2001, bin Laden with the financial and
logistical support of Omar and others in the Taliban and Iraq
and Iraqi intellignece, created, supplied and operated at least
five training camps in order to create an "Islamic Foreign
Legion" capable of attacking their enemies throughout the world.
These camps trained men from 15 nations in guerrilla warfare,
terrorist activities, rocket warfare, demolition and bombing,
including the use of mines, grenades, TNT, nitroglycerine and
plastic explosives. Classes were also given in "how to kill a
policeman" and "traps, murder and terrorist moves." Iraq upon
information and belief, agreed to supply arms to al Qaeda and
provide al Qaeda with access to and training in the use of
chemical and biological weapons and agreed to instruct al Qaeda
terror trainers at its Salman Pak camp in Baghdad that contained
a Boeing 707 used to practice hijacking. Iraq also agreed to
supply al Qaeda terrorists with new identities and passports
from Yemen and the United Arab Emirates. Al Qaeda agreed to
provide protection from political opponents to Iraq and Saddam
Hussein, and to commit assassinations and other acts of violence
to create instability in regions of Iraq, particularly
Kurdistan, to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein. Al Qaeda
further agreed to provide trained terrorists, assassins and
martyrs to carry out terror attacks in concert with Iraq against
their common enemies, including the United States. - Findlaw,
Ashton, et al. v. al Qaeda

FEBRUARY 1997: BIN LADEN ON IRAQ

Bin Laden publicly expressed his support for Iraq in its
conflict with the United States stating: "The hearts of the
Muslims are filled with hatred towards the United States of
America and the American president for American conduct towards
Iraq."- Findlaw, Ashton, et al. v. al Qaeda

APRIL 25 - MAY 1, 1998: AL QAEDA'S ABU-ISLAM & QASSIM MEET WITH QUSAY HUSSEIN IN IRAQ; ALSO IRAQI AGENTS MET WITH AL QAEDA IN AFGHANISTAN

Between April 25 and May 1, 1998, two of bin Laden's senior
military commanders, Muhammad Abu-Islam and Abdullah Qassim,
visited Baghdad for discussions with Saddam Hussein's son --
Qusay Hussein -- the "czar" of Iraqi intelligence. Qusay
Hussein's participation in those meetings highlights the
importance of the talks in both symbolic and practical terms.
Upon information and belief, as a direct result of these
meetings, Iraq again made commitments to provide training,
intelligence, clandestine Saudi border crossings, financial
support and weapons and explosives to al Qaeda. Iraqi
intelligence officials met with bin Laden in Afghanistan several
more times. A second group of bin Laden and al Qaeda operatives
from Saudi Arabia were then trained by Iraqi intelligence in
Iraq to smuggle weapons and explosives into Saudi Arabia and
other countries, which they later accomplished in an effort to
carry out future terrorist acts of violence. - Findlaw, Ashton,
et al. v. al Qaeda

1993 -2001: 911 HIJACKER ATTA, CZECHOSLAVAKIA TRIPS

Another lead: reports that chief hijacker Mohammed Atta made as
many as four trips to Prague in the Czech Republic, dating from
1993 to 2001. So far U.S. intelligence only has hard evidence of
one trip in 1999, when Atta was on his way to the United States.
Prague is important because it has been alleged, though again
not proved, (* My note: Not proved? We have two named
Czechoslavakian officials who have adamantly stated he did meet-
this is far more proof than the typical US reporter ever had to
claim that 'militia groups' were behind the OK City bombing.)
that Atta met there with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer. -
"9/11 Bombshell: New Evidence Of Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties?," by David
Martin, CBS News Oct. 1, 2002 David Martin

1998 Summer: IRAQ TRAINS AL QAEDA PERSONNEL

After the meetings in Iraq with Qusay Hussein, Saddam hussein's
son, Iraqi intelligence officials met with bin Laden in
Afghanistan several more times. A second group of bin Laden and
al Qaeda operatives from Saudi Arabia were then trained by Iraqi
intelligence in Iraq to smuggle weapons and explosives into
Saudi Arabia and other countries, which they later accomplished
in an effort to carry out future terrorist acts of violence. A
third group of bin Laden and al Qaeda operatives received a
month of sophisticated guerrilla operations training from Iraqi
intelligence officials later in the Summer of 1998. - Findlaw,
Ashton, et al. v. al Qaeda

JULY 1998 mid: AL ZAWAHIRI MEETS WITH IRAQI VICE PRESIDENT
RAMADAN IN IRAQ

Despite philosophical and religious differences with Saddam
Hussein, bin Laden continually sought to strengthen and
reinforce the support he and al Qaeda received from Iraq. In mid-
July 1998, bin Laden sent Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian co-
founder of al-Qaeda, to Iraq to meet with senior Iraqi
officials, including Iraqi vice president Taha Yassin Ramadan.
Upon information and belief, the purpose of this meeting was to
discuss and plan a joint strategy for a terrorist campaign
against the United States. During the July 1998 visit Zawahiri
toured an Iraqi military base and nuclear and chemical weapons
facility near al-Fallujah in Iraq and upon information and
belief, observed training by Iraqi intelligence officials of al
Qaeda operatives at the al-Nasiriyah military and chemical
weapons facility in Iraq. - Findlaw, Ashton, et al. v. al Qaeda

DECEMBER 1998: IRAQI OFFICIAL AL-HIJAZI MEETS WITH BIN LADEN IN
AFGHANISTAN

Following the December 1998 air strikes on Iraq, Saddam Hussein
dispatched Faruq al-Hijazi to Kandahar, Afghanistan in order to
meet with bin Laden and plot their revenge. To demonstrate
Iraq's commitment to bin Laden and al Qaeda, Hijazi presented
bin Laden with a pack of blank, official Yemeni passports,
supplied to Iraqi Intelligence from their Yemeni contacts.
Hijazi's visit to Kandahar was followed by a contingent of Iraqi
intelligence officials who provided additional training and
instruction to bin Laden and al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan.
These Iraqi officials included members of "Unit 999," a group of
elite Iraqi intelligence officials who provided advanced
sabotage and infiltration training and instruction to al Qaeda
operatives. At that meeting, upon information and belief, bin
Laden, al Qaeda and Iraq agreed to join efforts in a detailed,
coordinated plan for a protracted terrorist war against the
United States. - Findlaw, Ashton, et al. v. al Qaeda

1998 or after: IRAQ AGREES TO AID BIN LADEN IN SETTING UP LAB IN
AFGHANISTAN TO PRODUCE ANTHRAX

Iraq maintains an advanced chemical and biological weapons
program and is one of only three countries in the world
producing a highly developed weaponized anthrax. Some time
during or after 1998, Iraq agreed to help bin Laden and al Qaeda
develop a laboratory in Afghanistan designed to produce
anthrax. - Findlaw, Ashton, et al. v. al Qaeda

[Mike S]

JANUARY 1999: IRAQ TRAINS MORE AL QAEDA OPERATIVES AT ADDITIONAL
CAMPS AROUND BAGHDAD

In addition to the al-Nasiriyah and Salman Pak training camps,
by January 1999, bin Laden and al Qaeda operatives were being
trained by Iraqi intelligence and military officers at other
training camps on the outskirts of Baghdad. - Findlaw, Ashton,
et al. v. al Qaeda

JANUARY 1999: IRAQI AGENT ISMAIL BECOMES LIASON BETWEEN AL
QAEDA, TALIBAN & IRAQ

In January 1999, Iraq began reorganizing and mobilizing Iraqi
intelligence front operations throughout Europe in support of
bin Laden and al Qaeda. Haqi Ismail, believed to be a member of
the Iraq's Mukhabarat Secret Service, left Iraq to train in an
Afghanistan al Qaeda camp. Ismail was believed to be a liaison
between Iraq, the Taliban and al Qaeda and was rewarded with a
position in the Taliban Foreign Ministry. - Findlaw, Ashton, et
al. v. al Qaeda

JANUARY 2000: MALAYSIA, 911 HIJACKER AL MIDHAR, IRAQI SHAKIR

When hijacker Khalid al Midhar arrived in Malaysia in January of
2000 for a meeting of key al Qaeda operatives, he was met at the
airport by an Iraqi named Ahmad Shakir, who worked part-time
greeting VIPs, a job he got with the help of someone in the
Iraqi Embassy. One week later, al Midhar flew to the United
States, and 18 months later he was aboard the airliner that
crashed into the Pentagon. He is considered one of the most
important hijackers because he was in charge of the so-called
muscle – the young Saudi men responsible for subduing the
passengers. - "9/11 Bombshell: New Evidence Of Iraq-Al Qaeda
Ties?" by David Martin, CBS News Oct. 1, 2002 David Martin

2000 Spring: 911 HIJACKERS JARRAH & AL-SHEHHI MET WITH IRAQI
INTELLIGENCE AGENTS

According to U.S. and foreign intelligence officials, in the
spring of 2000, Iraqi intelligence agents met with September
11th pilot hijackers Zaid Samir Jarrah and Marwan al-Shehhi in
Dubai, UAE in order to advance the hijacking of U.S. aircraft to
commit terrorist acts. Not long after the meeting, al-Shehhi
entered the United States on May 29 and Jarrah entered on June
27, to begin preparations for attacks. - Findlaw, Ashton, et al.
v. al Qaeda

MAY 29, 2000: 911 HIJACKER AL-SHEHHI ENTERS THE US

Shortly after meeting with Iraqi intelligence agents in Dubai,
UAE, Marwan al-Shehhi enters the US - Findlaw, Ashton, et al. v.
al Qaeda JUNE 27, 2000: (911 HIJACKER JARRAH ENTERS THE US)
Shortly after meeting with Iraqi intelligence agents in Dubai,
UAE, Zaid Samir Jarrah enters the US. - Findlaw, Ashton, et al.
v. al Qaeda

JULY 21, 2001: IRAQ, FOREWARNING

On July 21, approximately six weeks before the September 11th
attacks, Iraqi columnist Mulhalhal reported that bin Laden was
making plans to "demolish the Pentagon after he destroys the
White House." Mulhalhal's July 21 article further informed that
bin Laden would strike America "on the arm that is already
hurting." Upon information and belief, this references a second
Iraqi sponsored attack on the World Trade Center. This
interpretation is further bolstered by another reference to New
York as "[bin Laden] will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra
every time he hears his songs." (e.g., "New York, New York")
identifying New York, New York as a target. Mulhalhal further
indicated, "The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one
and the same in the heart of a believer."

This appears to be a reference to the use of commercial aircraft
as a weapon. The information was reported in an Iraqi newspaper
whose editor-in-chief serves as secretary to Uday Hussein's
Iraqi Syndicate of Journalists. The article expressed Iraqi
admiration and support for bin Laden's plans and its appearance
in the newspaper would clearly have to be endorsed by Saddam
Hussein himself. All Iraqi news media is strictly controlled and
censored by the government of Saddam Hussein and is under the
direct oversight of Uday Hussein. Various members of Iraqi
intelligence work at and control the content of each and every
newspaper published inside Iraq. The information contained in
Mulhalhal's published statements were known prior to the events
of September 11th, and that Mulhalhal has ties to Iraqi
intelligence, demonstrates foreknowledge of the planned attacks
by bin Laden and indicates support by Iraqi co-conspirators. -
Findlaw, Ashton, et al. v. al Qaeda

2001 - 2002 winter: IRAQI SUPERGUN INSTRUCTIONS FOUND IN AL
QAEDA CAMPS

Instruction documents on an artillery weapon known as the "Super
Gun" were found in al Qaeda camps when they were captured by
U.S. forces in the winter of 2001-2002. Iraq is the only state
known to have purchased and assembled the super gun, a weapon so
large it must be constructed in segments. It has a range of
several hundred miles. - Findlaw, Ashton, et al. v. al Qaeda

SEPTEMBER 2002 late: NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR RICE SAYS AL
QAEDA & IRAQ ARE LINKED

The clearest link so far is that at least one senior member of
al Qaeda fled to Baghdad after Sept. 11. He has since left
Baghdad and there is no evidence Saddam Hussein knew about his
visit, although in a police state like Iraq people don't just
come and go. No one who has seen the intelligence is prepared to
make the case that Saddam had a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.
But suspicious links between Iraq and al Qaeda are becoming part
of the Bush administration's case for removing him from power.
Last week, President Bush's national security adviser said al
Qaeda operatives had found refuge in Baghdad, and accused
Saddam's regime of helping Osama bin Laden's followers develop
chemical weapons. Condoleezza Rice's statements were the
strongest public charges yet alleging contacts between al Qaeda
and the Iraqi government. "There clearly are contacts between al
Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented; there clearly is
testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts
and that there's a relationship here," Rice said. She said much
of the information was coming from al Qaeda operatives captured
since Sept. 11.

This included several senior leaders whom the U.S. alleges
organized terrorist attacks. "We clearly know that there were in
the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials
and members of al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long
time," Rice said. "We know too that several of the (al Qaeda)
detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said
that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons
development." The widely held view has been that while Saddam
and bin Laden both oppose the United States, their motivations
are too different for them to work together. Saddam seeks
secular power; bin Laden's drive comes from religious
motivations and his opposition to the U.S. military presence in
Saudi Arabia and the Arab world. "No one is trying to make an
argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had
operational control of what happened on Sept. 11, so we don't
want to push this too far, but this is a story that is
unfolding, and it is getting clearer, and we're learning more,"
Rice said. - "9/11 Bombshell: New Evidence Of Iraq-Al Qaeda
Ties?" by David Martin, CBS News Oct. 1, 2002 David Martin

1992: HIZBALLAH, IRAN, BIN LADEN, AL QAEDA

Bin Laden makes a proposal to the Shiite organization Hizballah
that they set aside their differences to cooperate in a common
objective of killing US troops stationed in Asia and Africa. -
MSNBC

1990s early: HIZBALLAH, IRAN & AL QAEDA STILL LINKED

Testimony in the East Africa embassy bombings trial, concluded
last year (2001), lays out connections between al-Qaeda and the
Iranian government, an unidentified senior Iranian religious
leader and Iran's most favored terrorist group, the Hizballah,
during the early 1990s. - MSNBC

1990s early and mid: AL QAEDA & IRANIAN OFFICIALS MEET
Specifically, the transcript of the trial shows that as early as
1998 the US was aware that on "various" occasions during the
early to mid-1990s, high-ranking al-Qaeda members met with
Iranian officials and that bin Laden himself met with the leader
of its terrorist surrogate, the Hizballah, to "cooperate against
the perceived common enemy," the US. Among the prosecutors'
revelations at the embassy bombing trials was that Iran and
Hizballah provided weapons and weapons training to al-Qaida and
its ally, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and that "Osama bin Laden
and other ranking members of al-Qaida, stated privately ... al-
Qaida should put aside its differences with Shiite Muslim
terrorist organizations, including the government of Iran and
its affiliated terrorist group Hizballah, to cooperate" against
the US. Moreover, there was testimony that bin Laden met with
Imad Mugniyeh, the mastermind behind the terrorist attacks that
took more than 300 American lives in Beirut during the 1980s. -
MSNBC

[Mike S]

1992 - 1996: AL QAEDA'S SALIM, IRANIAN CLERIC, AL QAEDA,
NATIONAL ISLAMIC FRONT OF SUDAN, IRANIAN GOVERNMENT

The meetings between al-Qaida and the unidentified Iranian
religious leader took place in Sudan with Mamdouh Mahmud Salim,
bin Laden's former financial manager, representing al-Qaida.
They took place at "various times" between 1992 and 1996,
according to prosecutors. All the meetings apparently took place
in Sudan. According to U.S. prosecutors, "At various times
between in or about 1992 and in or about 1996, the defendant
Mamdouh Mahmud Salim met with an Iranian religious official in
Khartoum as part of an overall effort to arrange a tripartite
agreement between al-Qaida, the National Islamic Front of Sudan
and elements of the government of Iran to work together against
the United States, Israel and other Western countries." Salim
goes on trial in New York early next year, and it is expected
that details of those dealings will be made public. -MSNBC

MARCH 2002: VENEZUELAN BERNAL IS CAUGHT SMUGGLING ARMS INTO SAUDI ARABIA FROM IRAQ

An MRV politician and close President Hugo Chavez aide closely
tied to the Circulos Bolivarianos, Freddy Bernal, was in Iraq
(in) March. He got caught trying to move arms into Saudi Arabia
by U.N. peacekeeping forces policing the border- "Terror Threat
from Venezuela: Al Qaeda Involved," by| Martin Arostegui,
Militares Democraticos, December 27, 2002

MARCH 8, 2002 9:29 PM: VENEZUELA, FATTAH, HANJOUR, 9/11
HIJACKERS

At 9:29 p.m. on March 8, 2002, Hakim Mamad Ali Diab Fattah
landed at Venezuela's Simón Bolívar International Airport on
board Delta Flight 397. The Venezuelan-born Arab had been the
subject of international surveillance because he had taken
lessons at two New Jersey flight schools attended by Hani
Hanjour, who crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the
Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. The FBI had arrested Fattah in the
US after discovering that he also had talked about blowing up an
airliner and had used forged identity documents. Information
about him was requested from Venezuela's internal security
service, Direccion de Inteligencia Seguridad y Prevencion
(DISIP). But little was forthcoming other than psychiatric
records showing that he was a diagnosed schizophrenic who had
failed to attend therapy for more than a year.

Top-level members of Venezuela's security services now are
shedding some light on the mystery. General Marcos Ferreira, who
recently resigned as director of the Venezuelan national guard's
border control, Departamento de Extranjeria (DIEX), says that
DISIP picked up Fattah directly from the plane and escorted him
into a waiting car parked on the runway. - "Terror Threat from
Venezuela: Al Qaeda Involved," by| Martin Arostegui, Militares
Democraticos, December 27, 2002
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/813031/posts?page=21

MAY 8, 2002: JOSE PADILLA

Arrest of American citizen Jose Padilla AKA Abdullah al Mujahir,
with a US passport, coming into Chicago O'Hare from Pakistan.
Target may have been Washington DC. It was determined to
consider him an enemy combatant.

JUNE 18, 2002: SYRIA, MOHAMMED HAYDAR ZAMMAR

The Washington Post reports that according to Arab intelligence
sources, the Syrian debriefing of German citizen Mohammed Haydar
Zammar, 41, is providing the United States with critical
information on the genesis of the plot to attack New York and
Washington as well al Qaeda's structure and possible plans. It
is unclear if U.S. officials have direct access to Zammar or
whether the Syrians put questions from the United States to the
prisoner and then report back. But an Arab source said Zammar
has become another check on information the United States gleans
from the interrogation of al Qaeda prisoners worldwide,
including the captured senior bin Laden Lieutenant Abu Zubaida.
German intelligence sources said today that they were only
informed by U.S. officials Thursday of Zammar's imprisonment in
Syria after an article in The Washington Post raised questions
about his whereabouts. Zammar is being held by the Syrian
authorities on long-standing charges that he was involved in a
bombing plot in the country, Arab officials said.

JUNE 22, 2002: IRANIANS, UN, CAMERAS, BROOKLYN BRIDGE, TUNNELS,
STATUE OF LIBERTY

Middle Easterners spotted videotaping the Brooklyn Bridge,
entrance tunnels, and the Statue of Liberty. They were stopped
and questioned but not arrested because they were employees of
the Iranian mission to the UN and had diplomatic immunity.

JUNE 27, 2002: IRANIANS, UN, CAMERAS, BROOKLYN BRIDGE, TUNNELS,
STATUE OF LIBERTY

Two men who work in NY for Iran's mission to the UN are being
expelled from the US, ABCNEWS has learned. Sources told ABCNEWS
that the two Iranians were seen five days ago videotaping the
Brooklyn Bridge, the entrance to the tunnels into Manhattan and
the Statue of Liberty. The men, who have been in the US only
four months and are described as security workers for the
mission, were stopped and questioned by NY police, sources said,
but were not arrested because of their diplomatic immunity. U.S.
officials plan to expel the men for suspicious activities, some
of which are related to irregularities in their identification
documents, sources said.

JULY 31, 2002: WASHINGTON POST REPORTS CIA FOUND IRAQI
BIOWEAPONS LAB

The Washington Post runs a detailed report ("Reality is
uncertainty," by Joby Warrick, Washington Post, 31 July 2002)
suggesting that the CIA has found a laboratory called Tahhaddy,
or "Challenge", on the west bank of the Tigris river, employing
a team of 85 scientists working on a viral strain code-named
Blue Nile. - Iraq - Scotsman says Saddam has weapons to wipe out
world's population, nuclear bomb within 3 years "The Scotsman
dossier - SPECIAL REPORT ON IRAQ" by Fraser Nelson, Westminster
Editor

AUGUST 2002: US SATELLITES DETECT ACTIVITY AT IRAQI BIOWEAPONS
FACILITY

US satellites detect a convoy of 60 trucks at a one of main
suspected biological weapons factories, called the Taji Cell
Protection Plant. - Iraq - Scotsman says Saddam has weapons to
wipe out world's population, nuclear bomb within 3 years "The
Scotsman dossier - SPECIAL REPORT ON IRAQ" by Fraser Nelson,
Westminster Editor

SEPTEMBER 26, 2002 Thursday: IRAQ, AL-QAEDA, WASHINGTON,
(Reuters)

Senior al Qaeda leaders have been in Baghdad "in recent
periods," U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on
Thursday, as the Bush administration pushed its case for
possible military action against Iraq. Rumsfeld was not more
specific about the timing, but his comments at a Pentagon
briefing appeared designed to allay doubts among opposition
Democrats and foreign allies that Iraq was a legitimate target
in the U.S. war on terrorism. However, none of the evidence has
been made public. "We certainly have evidence of senior al Qaeda
who have been in Baghdad in recent periods. Whether they're
currently there or not one never knows, because they're moving
targets," he said, of the movement blamed by Washington for the
Sept. 11 attacks on America that killed around 3,000 people. "If
you're asking if it (intelligence) is current -- in the last
period of days or weeks -- the answer is yes," the secretary
said. ((Charles Aldinger, Washington newsroom,
charles.aldinger@reuters.com)

SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2002: (SALEM, IRAQ, WEST BANK)

Saddam Hussein's pro-Iraqi "terror banker" on the West Bank,
Rakad Salem, 58 - who personally met with Saddam in Baghdad - is
captured along with incriminating documents in a raid on his
office in Ramallah. - "TERROR BANKER" by URI DAN, New York Post,
October 9, 2002

OCTOBER 2002: IRAQ

Iraqi scientists know how to make chemical weapons that can
penetrate military protective clothing, and Iraq imported up to
25 metric tons this month of a powder that is a crucial
ingredient to such "dusty" weapons. Iraq told the UN the powder
was destined for a pharmaceutical company. A former weapons
inspector says that company was ordered by President Saddam
Hussein before the 1991 Persian Gulf War to work on chemical and
biological weapons. The powder, sold under the brand name
Aerosil, has particles so small that, when coated with deadly
poisons, they can pass through the tiniest gaps in protective
suits. Researchers inside and outside the U.S. government say
they are not certain Iraq has dusty chemical weapons.
Declassified U.S. intelligence documents say Iraq produced a
dusty form of the blister agent mustard gas in the 1980s and
used it during its eight-year war with Iran. - "Iraq takes
delivery of powder used in chemical arms, " AP via Washington
Times, 11/18/02

[Mike S]

OCTOBER 2002: IMMIGRATION, ASSADI, IRAQ

A Washington, D.C. jury convicted Mohammed Hussein Assadi of
smuggling Iraqis into the United States through Cali, Colombia,
Ecuador, and other locations in South America. Assadi supplied
illegal alien Iraqis with stolen and altered European passports
and round-trip airline tickets to the U.S. in exchange for up to
$8,000 per person. These Iraqi smugglees purchased documents at
a commercial vendor in Northern Iraq called the "Market of
Passports," which they used to travel through Turkey and Ecuador
into Colombia. According to a statement from the U.S. attorney's
office, Assadi instructed the aliens to destroy the fraudulent
passports and tickets while en route to America and to surrender
to U.S. immigration authorities without disclosing their true
place of origin. The scheme relied on smug knowledge of our
government's "catch and release" policy for illegal aliens who
are freed pending deportation proceedings -- a policy that
remains in place today. - "The Iraqi Infiltration," by Michelle
Malkin, townhall.com, November 20, 2002

OCTOBER 2, 2002: SALIM ARRESTED BY ISRAELIS: HE IS LINKED TO
IRAQ

Rakahd Salim, the General Secretary of the Front for National
Liberation in the West Bank and Arafat advisor, was arrested on
October 2, 2002 after documents seized by the IDF during
operation "Defensive Shield" indicated that he was responsible
on behalf of Saddam Hussein for the distribution of money to the
families of Palestinian terrorists and suicide bombers. Salim
was directly responsible for the transfer of Iraqi aid funds to
the families of suicide bombers and Palestinian terrorists.

OCTOBER 8, 2002: SALEM or SALIM, IRAQ, WEST BANK, ARAB
LIBERATION FRONT, FATAH, PLO, PLF

Saddam Hussein's pro-Iraqi "terror banker" on the West Bank,
Rakad Salem (Rakahd Salim), 58 - who personally met with Saddam
in Baghdad - confesses to funneling $15 million to Palestinian
terrorists. Investigators said documents obtained in the West
Bank verified Salem's admission that $15 million had passed from
Saddam's personal control through a series of bank accounts
until it reached the Arab Liberation Front, where Salem was
secretary-general. Investigators said Salem served as Saddam's
conduit to terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. They said
he admitted paying $10,000 to the family of every
Palestinian "martyr" - the popular term for homicide bomber. In
addition, seriously wounded survivors of attacks on Israelis
would receive $1,000 in Iraqi money, he said. The less seriously
wounded would get $500.

Authorities said Salem's notoriety as Saddam's moneyman put him
in close contact with leading Palestinian factions, including
Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, and he served on the Palestine
Liberation Organization's Central Council. His arrest was the
first of a major agent of the Iraqi dictator for a role in the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Israeli authorities said the
financial chain went from accounts in a branch of the Iraqi
national bank in Amman, Jordan, to a Jordanian bank in Amman, to
a Ramallah bank controlled by Salem. Israeli prosecutors did not
say over what time period the $15 million was transferred. Until
his arrest, Salem had occupied a fifth-floor office in Ramallah,
on the same floor as the terrorist Palestinian Liberation Front,
whose leader, Abu Abbas, carried out the 1986 hijacking of the
cruise ship Achille Lauro. Israeli authorities say Salem had
close ties to Abbas, who is believed to be hiding out in Iraq.
Salem was arrested by Israeli commandos who were
disguised as Arabs.

[186k\sec]

I believe Orwell was speaking of intelligent critique. not a bunch of rabid haters reading so much into three words spoken by the "beast bush" that due to their hatefilled, overactive imaginations they've drawn from "bring em on" that waves of angry islamo fascists and their ba'ath brotheren are going to now swarm outa the hills and attack mercilessly. Putting our soldiers in danger.

Its ridiculous and being such it deserves nothing but ridicule. To dignify something of this nature with any sort of rational discussion would do a disservice to rational discussion everywhere


this only further displays your pattern of deliberate ridicule of those who disagree with You, dismissing respect & open discussions to conveniently digress into your partisan insulting and slanderous ranting.. * yaaawn *

this 'bring it on' nonesnense was not about people reading into what bush may have really meant by saying that, . . .its about who he said it to. > its an obviously bad choice of words, at an even worse time to say them....knowing the war is not over, as promised during the top gun carrier landing, knowing troops are going to be in Iraq much longer than assuringly predicted, and knowing we are up against an enormous amounts of pressure to maintain order, with very little outside support...
yeah,
so dont give us your cockeyed shit about not being up to "intelligent critique" when that jackass you are so willingly ready to defend is out there stumbing as a president to show the kind of dignity you expect from the number 1 nation on the planet.

oh, and heres another reason you might want to get drunk:

http://www.ananova.com/business/story/sm_796625.html

[bungle bliss]

If even one soldier gets killed because of this it's unacceptable.

This isn't a complicated matter to me consisting of a hidden agenda and underlying messages. You can read in whatever you're needing to> Three words is a pretty small number to misconstrue, kind of like "Fuck off, Mike." What part of that, OR "Bring them on", can be taken out of context?

"As a mother of one of our brave troops in Iraq, may I just say, Mr. President, Perhaps you truly do believe in the invincibility of our military; however, the next time you invite attacks on my son, and others, kindly stand in front of our soldiers, rather than hiding behind."

There ya go! (for the assholes who still don't get it.)

For those with Flash (and especially for the assholes who still don't get it)-

http://new.globalfreepress.com/flash/

He said it, and they will. I don't need seven posts in a row to make my point, because I don't need to try to convince people of what Bush meant, cuz he SAID IT PLAINLY, AND I CAN READ ENGLISH.

[seattle science]

"If even one soldier gets killed because of this".

What a fucking moron.

This encourages our troops, not our enemies, period. The Islamist fanatics are going to kill Jews and Americans no matter what Bush says, and if you think not you are an imbecile. Bush's comments only boost troop morale, which obviously upsets you idiots who wish for America to lose.

[superkool]

thanks for the thoughts crackhead, oh crack monkey.

[superkool]

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Mortar rounds slammed into a U.S. base north of Baghdad (search), wounding at least 10 American troops, and a U.S. soldier was killed in a convoy attack in the capital, the military said Friday.





The attacks cast a shadow over the July 4th (search) holiday for the 150,000 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq.

Several explosions rocked the base near Balad (search), 55 miles north of the capital, late Thursday, said Cpl. Todd Pruden (search), a spokesman for the U.S. military. The area is within a hot zone known as the "Sunni triangle," an area north and west of Baghdad where Saddam Hussein enjoyed his greatest support.

It is also an area where U.S. troops are conducting an operation to root out Saddam loyalists.

The wounded soldiers' condition was not immediately known. "All we know is they were evacuated to medical facilities," Pruden said.

The convoy attack that killed one American soldier happened at about 8:30 p.m. Thursday in eastern Baghdad. The soldier was in a Bradley fighting vehicle when he was shot. He was evacuated to a military hospital, but died of his wounds, Pruden said.

His name was not immediately available.

U.S. soldiers have been beset by daily attacks from an increasingly bold insurgency, raising fear of a political and military quagmire just two months after President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1.

At least 27 U.S. troops have been killed in hostile fire since Bush's statement.

Despite the attacks, many of the U.S. troops planned July 4th barbecues at bases around the country. A few were to join Arnold Schwarzenegger at Baghdad International Airport for a screening of the muscle-bound actor's latest movie, "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines."

In the north, American forces planned joint celebrations with Kurdish officials. The Kurds celebrate July 4 as the anniversary of their first government's election in 1992.

U.S. officials have said the insurgency is being fueled by doubts about Saddam's fate and crushing it is crucial.

The American sweep, dubbed Sidewinder, has netted at least 20 "high-value" targets, but none of the most wanted Iraqi fugitives. Arms and ammunition, including hundreds of rocket propelled grenades, or RPGs, have also been seized.

On Thursday, U.S. troops near Baqouba, northeast of the capital, tried to lure attackers into an ambush on a stretch of road known as "RPG Alley" because of the frequent attacks on U.S. forces there. One suspect was killed and three captured in the operation, said Lt. Kurt Chapman, with the Army's 4th Infantry Division.

"We're trying to be a little bit more proactive and find them before they get us," Chapman said.

Also Thursday, Washington put a $25 million bounty on Saddam Hussein's head and offered $15 million for information leading to the capture of either of his sons, Udai and Qusai.

The reward for Saddam matches the $25 million that Washington is offering its other top fugitive: Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaida leader missing since U.S. forces helped dislodge the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The last reported sighting of Saddam was on April 9, a day before the capital fell, in northeast Baghdad. He was the target of at least two major U.S. air strikes, but there was never any proof either was successful. Based on information from captured colleagues, officials believe they were not.

Saddam loyalists reportedly are warning Iraqis not to cooperate with American occupation authorities, saying the ousted leader will one day come back to punish those who do. The mystery over Saddam's whereabouts is encouraging the resistance.

Scattered violence on Thursday wounded 10 American soldiers. During the skirmishes, which included convoy and sniper attacks, U.S. troops killed at least two Iraqis and wounded several more.



hey thanks bush, why not bring on some more?

[Mirko]

Originally posted by superkool

hey thanks bush, why not bring on some more?
Me and my "conspiracy theories" think that this is indeed the plan. It's so simple. With continued attacks on American soldiers it will provide more palatable excuses to continually fund unnecessary military excess. And with continued attacks on American citizens, it will cause Americans to be all the more frightened, allowing even more civil rights to be silently yanked away. A culture of fear is very important to those who want to rule this country by force but don't have the balls to declare marshal law. In the short term, these events are to make Bush look "strong" in the eyes of our TV nation denizen, leading (they hope) to his re-election, paving the way for another four years of terror.

[Boyd Main]

I don't think what Bush said will have any bearing at all on any actions in the Mid-east. At all. That said, I'm still disgusted by it. He is a simpleton. His mental functions are obviously so deficient that he actually thinks like a school-boy, and can only talk like one too.

Happy $th of July, America. Your president is a moron!!!!

[Mirko]

Yeah. Making war on people is what has bearing on events.

His saying "bring them on" is an indicator that he's finally able to describe his policy in words so simple even he can understand.

[Mike S]

Ridicule you for disagreeing - no - ridicule you for fixating on this .. yes.

186 the reaction to this statement by certain people isn't centered around any serious thought out concern about the effect the statement will have on the sensibilities of the fanatics and how they might get even more mad and kill an American. Straw-man.
This is - once again - all about the disdain certain people have for the man in the big chair. This time not his policies but his personal demeanor.
Its snobbery conveniently and dishonestly wrapped up in politics. .

Get over it.. that's the way the man is. He's a Texan. A walkin, talkin, straight to the point Texan. So What. So are several million other Americans.

Bush walks with a swagger and talks with a swagger - as do any number of men in this country - are they idiots too? The guy speaks using a vernacular common in that part of the country. Am I to assume anyone doing the same would be an idiot as well. And - unlike "enlightened" places like Seattle or NYC - where they'll at least be "polite" enough to wait tillya leave to tell someone else what they think of ya.. Dub comes from a part of the world where - more often than not - you get to hear it first hand.
That's the way the man lives. Welcome to America. 50 different political entities containing a multitude of different and sometimes very unique cultures. Most of em don't walk talk and chew gum like you 186.

They idiots too?

Ironic - here you accuse me of ridiculing you because I disagree with your point of view. Yet thats pretty much the substance of anything you have to say about Bush or any number of people in the administration.

don't like it when it comes back your way do ya.

What do you call the trash you talk day in and day out?

Or statements like Boyd's - "he's an idiot". That's not a statement of fact - hell its not even an educated opinion - its just Boyd being an elitist snob. Bush don't think like Boyd and talk like Boyd so Bush must be an idiot.

deep.


So I dismiss respect and open discussion to digress into partisan slander. Really? You mean like this eloquent statement by boyd - "He is a simpleton. His mental functions are obviously so deficient that he actually thinks like a school-boy, and can only talk like one too.
Happy $th of July, America. Your president is a moron!!!! "

wow - take out any referrance to Bush and insert referances to democrats, liberals or some ot the people around here and that could be one of my posts.

Or do my posts look like some of yours?

Getting tired of it yet?


Nuff o that tho - have a happy independence day.

G'night Ralph
MS

[Boyd Main]

Originally posted by Mike S
Bush walks with a swagger and talks with a swagger...Yes, but the problem is that he thinks with one too.

Maybe you don't see that as a problem, but I would, if the political style of the leader of my country was basically thoughtless macho posturing.

[ZupanGOD]

prej·u·dice ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prj-ds)
n.

1.
1. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
2. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.

nahhh.. :p

-Jason

[Effendi]

.
It is amazing to me how the people who like mr.bush constantly try to portray him as a good innocent man..

While the rest of everyone judges the man for the things he has done and not done in his life.

As has been proven over and over again, you can defend him all you want to, but we still recognize him for what he is.

It is almost funny how you are always trying to twist things around so that you can try to portray what we recognize as inadequacies in the man for his office as some kind of Character fault in us.

If the Man gave me a million dollars, I would like him VERY much and may likely defend him to the hilt even if he was wrong, JUST because I decided I liked him, I am some how able to Mentally Overlook all the other wrong things he does.

You can try and paint people as Anti-this or Prejudice that but the day I signed onto this board I knew the man for what he is, and the day you signed onto this board you loved the man because he was your president. Nothing will change to the day either of us sign off for the last time either.

I truely no longer give a fuck if you think I'm prejudice or if you think I'm racist or if you think I'm Anti-anything. I am who I am, I am proud of who I am, and Most Importantly I am the Sum of this life's experience, and why should I allow some cracker jack opinion to question the validity of my belief.

I didn't come to what I believe lightly and it shouldn't surprise you that some smartass sarcastic comment is NOT likely to change my opinion on anything other than whether or not I respect YOU anymore!!
/rant

Scott!!

[bungle bliss]

An excerpt from an article, on Bush being "just a regular guy"-

<snip>

I'm going to let you in on a little secret here George. Those of us who don't live with our parents, watch professional wrestling, and possess Yosemite Sam mud-flaps, think you're pretty damn stupid. I don't know who you're trying to impress. "Evil Doers." "Dead or Alive." "Freedom Loving People." "Misunderestimate." You think this is decorum befitting a President? Have you ever heard of dignity, or grace, or even common decency? You may think that this is the "way to the common man's heart," and to some people, you may be right. But you know what there George, I don't believe the Framers ever envisioned a "common man" being President. It's an exceptional job that requires an exceptional person. You're a mediocre man doing a deplorable job.

Let me clue you in on the common man while we're on the subject George. The common man may be a C student, but he doesn't get into Yale University. The common man does not graduate from school and have an oil business waiting there for him to run into the ground. The common man doesn't summer in Kennebunkport. The common man has earned just about every dollar he has ever had. The common man doesn't get to take a nap during the workday. The common man can't collect $2,000 from people to hear him speak like a common man. The common man knows what it's like to struggle.

Many common men and women think that they can ease their struggles by enlisting to serve you, George. But then you just turn around and dare the enemy to bring it on. You should be ashamed of yourself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/07/04_declaring.html
________________________________

Bush is not, nor will he ever be, "just regular folk". More delusions. :rolleyes:

NEXT!

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by bungle bliss
I'm going to let you in on a little secret here George. Those of us who don't live with our parents, watch professional wrestling, and possess Yosemite Sam mud-flaps, think you're pretty damn stupid.

Wow such an open mind.. :rolleyes:

Prejudice is awesome!! If you don't hate as much as I do, yer a wrestling watching, mudd flappin fool. And you live w/ yer parents..

:D

:rolleyes:

[Pler]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike S




OK Pler I'll quitfucking around & being rambunctious and be serious.

So what it comes down to is what I mentioned before - Opinions.

You cant prove there's no collusion due to a lack of evidence at you disposal or a perceived lack of credibility in the evidence presented.


It has nothing to do with lack of credability, it has to do with lack of evidence. If the Bush administration would provide empiracle evidence to susbstantiate their claims, I'd have no choice but to belive those claims based upon the facts. My skeptiscism is a result of lack of such evidence...I cannot believe somethng, unless it can be proven to be factual.
And you just asked me...again...to prove a negative. Asking for evidence, to show that nothing happened...is logically unsound. Think about it (think about it longer this time...you obviously didn't think before you asked me...again)

Its not so much getting you to prove a negative its getting you to admit you don't know. You don't know that there was contact between Iraq and al qeada - the government claims was but due to your politics - nothing more - you disregard that evidence as no being credible.
I'll take it at face value just like I'll take what you say about you at face value. I've got no reason to not believe either.

I don't know for positive if there was cooperation between Al Queda and Iraq, you're right. Then again, there could also be collusion between Al Queda and Norway or the UK...but you don't hear me calling for attacks on these nations, simply because I cannot prove for 100% that there isn't some sort of conspiracy.
What I do infact know, however, is that the US administration has been unable to prove it's assertion as to the dangers Iraq posed to our national security, therefore, logic does not permitt me to believe those assertions until such time as they can be proven.
Given the gravity of the situation i.e. war, death, killing etc...I am unwilling to abandon logic and reason for a belief in the integrity of a politician...especially a politician who's been proven to have knowingly lied

You also cant say with any certainty that having been given the opportunity the Saddam would not have passed on bio - or chem WMD OR nuclear technology to a party interested in using it on us.

You see it's just this very sort of pseudo logic, wich is rooted in denial that I object to. When we go to war, and risk the lives of our fighting men and ask them to kill people in our names, nothing less than the truth, and total justification must be demanded. Anything short of this, will not be accepted as being a plausible justification for engaging in armed conflict.
That you would attempt to justify this war, based upon a paranoid presumption that Iraq was activley conspiring against us, without any absolute proof of such a thing, illustrates the depth to wich your partisan views and extreme loyalty have cast a shadow over your willingness to reason.
How can you ask me to belive that this war was justified based upon the perceived infallability of our president and his administration to accuratly predict the future? You are asking me to assume things without evidence...and that is simply illogical. Why you are unable to understand where I'm comming from is beyond me, the evidence or lack there of is clear, your arguements revolve entirely around your own personal faith in the honesty of this administration...rather than proveable evidences.
There can't be any "maybes" or "could be's"...we're going to war, and there should be no question as to the validity of our reasons. The fact that the claims made to justify war, cannot be proven, and in some cases have been misproven, prevent me from accepting them...and seriously call into question the honesty of the administration and the justifications for war


And why wait till its used to find out its been done.

Why not apply this logic to the rest of the world? Why not advocate attacking Norway or Spain..before they attack us? I mean, why wait until it's already been done...right?
It is immoral to attack nations based upon the assumption that they *might* pose a threat at sometime in the future.


its an ironic twist that the same people who went off on Bush about not putting the pieces together in time and preventing the 9-11 attacks NOW attack bush for - as far as the administration is concerned - putting the pieces together and preventing an attack of an infinitely greater magnitude from occurring. I'm not saying you fall into this same category Pler but these are the same people who then - as now - insist this is all about oil yet in being so convinced fail to do the "moral calculus" involved in such an act..meaning that if we were of a mind to take acountry over for oil - and the administration was morally bankrupt enough to do it - then to cut to the chase - we'd just annex Alberta.
Or equatorial guinea.. you get my drift.

No I don't get your drift...because I am not one of these people...nor do they have anything to do with our discussion


One thing I think you and many others miss when looking at a war on terror is that its not just a war on the terrorists but a war on where they come from.

Terrorists don't come from Iraq...they come from places like Syria, Chechnya, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE etc....
I think you are misinformed.

Now seeing that its not so much a country but an ideology that takes advantage of certain environments - Its only logical that besides eliminating the terrororists themselves its imperative that we eliminate the environments that spawn them. And here's where the application of force is tricky and enters the realm of the theoretical.

This ideology of fundamentalism, didn't exist in Iraq...Iraq was a secular nation...the fundamentalists opposed Iraq because of it's secularism. Again, you're misinformed.



The sort of extremism that converts normal people to extremists thrives in an atmosphere of hopelessness. Failed or repressive states are fertile ground for both.

we didn't see any of the type of extremist islam that you're talking about, in Iraq. You are simply wrong.

As demonstrated in Afghanistan we can go into a failed state and root out the cancer there.. but what do you do about repressive regimes.
go in and take them all out by force. Nice thought but not possible even for us. Subvert them from the inside? Sure. but that takes willing and organized subversive elements you WANT to work with inside the country. And - as with most oppressive regimes - subversives don't last long. So what? Subvert them from the outside? Absolutely. and its something we have experience with in our efforts to undermine the Soviet bloc during the cold war. To paraphrase a professor of mine from waaaay back - Liberalization is like candy - give those who don't have it a taste and pretty soon their gonna want a candy store of their own. Enter Iraq. Rouge, aggressor state. Oppressive murderous regime. In violation of cease fire and a pile of UN mandates regarding WMD disarmament. Also located right smack in the middle of the worlds most oppressively, hopeless neighborhood - or if you like - the worlds terrorist incubator.

There was no terrorism incubating in Iraq...ergo there was no reason to go in and "subvert them from the outside". This war is pointless...unjustified.



Then plant a liberalized Arab state in its place. And do and spend what is necessary to make sure it is a success. That combined with a successful Palestinian state as well as a liberalized Iran (hoping the revolution ignites there) can - and hopefully will - be the impetus to force liberal change in the region. Remove hopelessness, remove the focus on the Arab/Israeli conflict. INVEST HEAVILY in the infrastructure and education of the region. All the while leaning on the regimes - heavily - to recognize the rights of their people. Its a lot to ask for and its a long, expensive process but THAT is how you win the war on terror.
Now do you understand Iraq's connection to it?

No..I don't understand Iraq's connection to it. Because there hasn't been any proof to suggest that Iraq was sponsoring terror, or threatening the national security of the US. Your presumptions to the contrary are just that...

Transformation of the region I believe is the term the administration used over and over - but is conveniently forgotten by those who - due to their hate for Bush - oppose this war on terror of which Iraq was just a battle.

Yes, everyone who opposes the war...only does so because of a hatred for the president? It has nothing to do with the fact that the assertions made by washington haven't panned out? has nothing to do with the absurd doctrine of "pre-emptive strikes"? has nothing to do with the lies, the plagurized reports?
I think you're the one with the illogical mindset...assuming things to be fact without evidence to prove they are. It is illogical...

[Cedwyn]

He's a Texan. A walkin, talkin, straight to the point Texan. So What. So are several million other Americans

do not *ever* insult me and other *true* texans in this manner again! shrubya wasn't born there and he is in *no* way representative of a texan.

your lowest blow yet... ;)

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Cedwyn


do not *ever* insult me and other *true* texans in this manner again! shrubya wasn't born there and he is in *no* way representative of a texan.

your lowest blow yet... ;)

Wow!! What snobbery! :p

Ok, so the official definition of a texan is wrong. What's a real texan again?

[186k\sec]

texans are living proof cowboys fuck sheep.

[bungle bliss]

Originally posted by Cedwyn


do not *ever* insult me and other *true* texans in this manner again! shrubya wasn't born there and he is in *no* way representative of a texan.

your lowest blow yet... ;)

Bush is from New England. Who the fuck said he was a Texan? Oh, that's right, he did.

A real Texan could actually FIND OIL IN TEXAS if they looked. A real Texan doesn't run for congress to represent MIDLAND and LOSE (he probably lost because he wasn't really from Texas, among a myriad of other reasons).

There's more to being a Texan than being big-headed and loud-mouthed. I guess Shrub figured once he got the ignorant stereotypical characteristics down, he could pass for a true Texan, but he guessed wrong.

[bungle bliss]

Oh, and it's unbecoming to call someone else a snob when you yourself are a twit crybaby who disses the French because they aren't kissing America's ass.

Oh, you mean you think they should bow down to our country?

Wow, what snobbery! :rolleyes:

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by bungle bliss


Bush is from New England. Who the fuck said he was a Texan? Oh, that's right, he did.

A real Texan could actually FIND OIL IN TEXAS if they looked. A real Texan doesn't run for congress to represent MIDLAND and LOSE (he probably lost because he wasn't really from Texas, among a myriad of other reasons).

There's more to being a Texan than being big-headed and loud-mouthed. I guess Shrub figured once he got the ignorant stereotypical characteristics down, he could pass for a true Texan, but he guessed wrong.

LOL

A Texan is simply a resident of the state of Texas, just as a resident in Florida is referred to as a Floridian. If the dictionary is wrong and your ambiguous definition is what one is than I stand correct. :rolleyes:

-Jason

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by bungle bliss
Oh, and it's unbecoming to call someone else a snob when you yourself are a twit crybaby who disses the French because they aren't kissing America's ass.

Oh, you mean you think they should bow down to our country?

Wow, what snobbery! :rolleyes:

Nice strawman. ;)

-Jason

[Cedwyn]

A Texan is simply a resident of the state of Texas, just as a resident in Florida is referred to as a Floridian.

go ahead...peddle this overly-simplistic-but-completely-in-character-for-zupan definition to a texan...i dare you.

it's the same principle behind all the !@#$% californicators moving to oregon. they will *never* be considered oregonians by the natives.

*spanks 186* : p

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Cedwyn


go ahead...peddle this overly-simplistic-but-completely-in-character-for-zupan definition to a texan...i dare you.

it's the same principle behind all the !@#$% californicators moving to oregon. they will *never* be considered oregonians by the natives.

*spanks 186* : p

I'm not trying to peddle anything.. honestly. I'm just trying to be a little pragmatic here. Florida is one huge migrational state, if everyone felt like you about people who were not born in the state, I don't think you could consider many people here in Florida as Floridians. An actual native with 2nd, 3rd, and etc generations is very hard to come by around here.

Take care,
Jason

[Cedwyn]

yeah, but FL doesn't get to fly its flag at the same height as the U.S. flag.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
yeah, but FL doesn't get to fly its flag at the same height as the U.S. flag.

Hmm, I thought we were all givin the grace by the imperial federal government to at least fly the state flag on a different poll at the same height as the US Flag in all states. I dunno, if so.. Damn buerucrats in Tallahassee and Washington!!

[Goes and burns both FL and US flags]

Where's my lighter!! :D

[burnt]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


LOL

A Texan is simply a resident of the state of Texas, just as a resident in Florida is referred to as a Floridian. If the dictionary is wrong and your ambiguous definition is what one is than I stand correct. :rolleyes:

-Jason

I can't claim to speak for Texas, cuz I got nothing to do with Texas........plus, I'm so combative that even in middle school, when I first heard the phrase "don't mess with Texas", I just like *HAD* to raise my middle finger proclaiming "FUCK TEXAS!!!"

but, um...........yea, here in Oregon??? we gots lots of fools that we call "carpetbaggers" or "goddam californians", or "californicators"............folks who left their over-polluted towns to move up to Portland........then try'n run public offices and tell us how its supposed to be done. fools who fled Manhattan's pollutants and neon signs, so's they could join the argument against loggers chopping down some spotted owl's trees...they don't get invited to our barbecues, just our charity balls. ;)

ah, but that "little Beirut" for you......slow to discriminate, strong to maintain their discrimination...

Bush originates from New England??? veddy innnnnteresting, I had no idea........

[186k\sec]

Bush originates from New England??? veddy innnnnteresting, I had no idea........

he originates from that old worn out ute, wrapped in leather they call 'Barbara'

yes, he's barbarella's boy.

[HexRei]

Originally posted by burnt

Bush originates from New England??? veddy innnnnteresting, I had no idea........

Unless you believe in the mystical mumbo jumbo hoodoo about your physical birthplace having something to do with your personality, it's really not all that significant. The Bush's moved to Texas when W. was 2 years old.

[Cedwyn]

they may have moved there when shrubya was 2 years old, but, rest assured, they didn't discard their new england attitudes overnight. it is in those that shrubya was steeped as a wee one, not texan culture; physically being in texas doesn't mean doodley-squat. but wait...he wasn't even that! daddy sent him to a new england boarding school...

he probably only stayed in texas because that's where the job daddy got him was and they don't have state income tax.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
they may have moved there when shrubya was 2 years old, but, rest assured, they didn't discard their new england attitudes overnight. it is in those that shrubya was steeped as a wee one, not texan culture; physically being in texas doesn't mean doodley-squat. but wait...he wasn't even that! daddy sent him to a new england boarding school...

he probably only stayed in texas because that's where the job daddy got him was and they don't have state income tax.


Whats ironic Ced.. in as much as who you are is presented here .. you come off as more of a New Englander (chowd) than Bush.
But .. I imagine at one point you were girl with a laid back Texan drawl and demeanor .. then you moved someplace partially populated with bunch of provincial minded uber honkies that think anyone with an "east of the mountains" air about em is a hick.

Oh if we could only have the old Ced back..

heh

MS

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
they may have moved there when shrubya was 2 years old, but, rest assured, they didn't discard their new england attitudes overnight. it is in those that shrubya was steeped as a wee one, not texan culture; physically being in texas doesn't mean doodley-squat. but wait...he wasn't even that! daddy sent him to a new england boarding school...

he probably only stayed in texas because that's where the job daddy got him was and they don't have state income tax.

Umm.. "new england attitude"? Well, most of my family lives in New England, and I grew up in NY, Vermont, and Maine, and if anything I'd say the new england attitude is extremely liberal. Quite the opposite of Bush.
But anyway...

[Cedwyn]

ummm....you weren't born into an oil barony? : p

and i didn't mean "attitude" in any negative sense. just in the sense of beliefs, social habits, etc...you know, "local flavor."

new england, and each state comprising it, has pockets of conservatism and liberalism, just as texas does.

*shrug*

and mike...wow. you're actually not terribly off the mark. i spent a little time in texas (and many more summers), but was forced to do time on the east coast. but now i'm west coast stylee and recovering quite nicely, thanks!

i've been told by many that i need to get to hawaii, as i appear to be all about "island time."

[Mirko]

This has gotten completely and totally off topic, but...

In my experience, different geographical regions of this country has less to do with social attitudes than urban vs. rural settings. Generally speaking, people who live in cities tend to want services, like mass transit, big libraries, museums, etc., and don't mind paying for them. Whereas people in rural areas tend to be more "do it yourself", and don't get a chance to visit the big library in the city 100 miles away, and feel irritated if they have to pay for it. A farmer living in rural New York has more in common with a farmer in rural Washington than she does with someone living in Brooklyn. These are very, very broad generalizations and of course there are thousands of exceptions, and there are also, as you guys have said, attitude differences across geographic regions. And of course, as Cedwyn implies, socioeconomic status probably accounts for the most severe attitude differences between people. (This country now has the worst disparity of wealth in the world.)

These differences are, in my view, a huge part of why this country is so interesting. Not only is it not homogenous racially, the sheer geographic size and difference between various climates etc. makes for a wide variety of people. It's a shame most Americans can't afford to travel around the country much... There's a lot to see.

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
ummm....you weren't born into an oil barony? : p

and i didn't mean "attitude" in any negative sense. just in the sense of beliefs, social habits, etc...you know, "local flavor."

new england, and each state comprising it, has pockets of conservatism and liberalism, just as texas does.

*shrug*


You are of course correct. There are people of all political stances found pretty much everywhere.
But to keep things on the level, let's keep in mind that Vermont recently legalized gay marriage, New York has a gay senator... and, well, Texas finally got around to legalizing gay sodomy :D

[Mirko]

Originally posted by HexRei

Vermont recently legalized gay marriage

Sorry, I have to nitpick here-- Vermot did not legalize gay marriage-- "marriage" is still reserved for male-female couples. But they did extend the same rights that straight couples enjoy to civil unions between same-gender couples.

And now we're so far off topic I need to look at the title of the thread to remember what on earth we were talking about in the first place.

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Mirko

Sorry, I have to nitpick here-- Vermot did not legalize gay marriage-- "marriage" is still reserved for male-female couples. But they did extend the same rights that straight couples enjoy to civil unions between same-gender couples.

And now we're so far off topic I need to look at the title of the thread to remember what on earth we were talking about in the first place.

That's a hell of a lot better than the 48 states (it's still just Hawaii and Vermont, right?) that don't recognize ANY union between same sex couples.

[Mirko]

Originally posted by HexRei
That's a hell of a lot better than the 48 states (it's still just Hawaii and Vermont, right?) that don't recognize ANY union between same sex couples.
Totally.

A "real-world" problem is, apart from gay couples being "second class" next to straight couples, is that when Vermonter gay couples visit or move to another state, their civil union will not be recognized as legal.

The "Defense of Marriage Act" might have really nasty repercussions if it gets passed, leaving the courts as the only avenue to secure serious gay rights. (Sorry, I don't remember any details... I don't even remember where I read this, probably an old Human Rights Campaign newsletter.)

I think something like 35 states have passed laws outlawing gay marriage.

Yeah, as far as I know, only Hawaii and Vermont allow civil unions. I think Hawaii was one of the states that passed a law stating only straight couples could be married.

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Mirko

Totally.

A "real-world" problem is, apart from gay couples being "second class" next to straight couples, is that when Vermonter gay couples visit or move to another state, their civil union will not be recognized as legal

The "Defense of Marriage Act" might have really nasty repercussions if it gets passed, leaving the courts as the only avenue to secure serious gay rights. (Sorry, I don't remember any details... I don't even remember where I read this, probably an old Human Rights Campaign newsletter.)

I think something like 35 states have passed laws outlawing gay marriage.

Yeah, as far as I know, only Hawaii and Vermont allow civil unions. I think Hawaii was one of the states that passed a law stating only straight couples could be married.

Werd. Two of my male friends are going to get "civilly united"in Hawaii, in fact I think they might already be... it's scary to think that they could move to another jurisdiction and suddenly all those rights just vanish.
kind of reminds me of medical marijauna, the city or state police will smile and wave, but the feds will give you 10 years.

Anyway, it's pretty fucked up how a mob of rabid homophobes can keep this sort of legislation on the books in our age of "reason".
Anyone want to start over on Mars? I got a rocket around here somewhere... ;)