Give up Nate. COme back and talk to him in 15 years.

RochesterFalcon Wrote:

Quote: He's saying that 9/11 was a wake up call

In other words, it pissed Americans off.

Quote:that we can't have brutal dictators

I fail to see the connection between the Sept. 11 massacre and dictatorship, brutal or otherwise.

Don't get me wrong. I would welcome a new era of foreign policy idealism in which America consistently stands for government with the consent of the governed. It would sure help atone for the past, a past which has seen our government cozy up to dictators (including Saddam) and even despose democratically elected leaders (e.g., <a href='http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm' target='_blank'>Salvador Allende</a>).

What I don't see is how Sept. 11, 2001 marks a break with the realpolitik of the past or even logically leads us there.

If Gulf War II is really about idealism, why would our government insist on breaking international law and incurring the wrath of most other world governments to pursue it?

No, Sept. 11, 2001 did not thurst America into a new era of foreign policy idealism. That was made clear last year, when George Bush instantly and unabashedly cheered a coup that briefly deposed Hugo Chavez, the democratically-elected president of Venezuela. Indeed, some suspect Bush had <a href='http://www.progressive.org/webex/wx041902.html' target='_blank'>advance warning of the coup.</a>

Bush is no idealist and this war isn't about idealism. It's about paranoia -- a new foreign policy of paranoia and pre-emption.

Quote:with a past history of terrorism

In Israel and Turkey. Not here. And, (sarcasm) with Turkey so supportive of this war (/sarcasm), the terrorist angle really comes down to this: We are at war defending right wing Israeli zealots who build settlements in territory they have no business being.

Sure, that sounds like a huge stretch. Fine. One might argue this war isn't about Israel. I won't dispute that. But make the argument that this war isn't about Israel, and the terrorism angle evaporates. The only other target of Iraqi-supported terror was Turkey, and Turkey didn't want this war.

Quote:and oppression

Again, I don't see the connection between Sept. 11, 2001 and oppression.

Quote:Saddam has and would have continued to support terrorism.

The Kurdish PKK movement that operated in Turkey was broken up years ago. That leaves terrorism in Israel. Is that what this is about? Does that justify this war? If so, wouldn't that make Al Jazeera well... right?

Dude, you obviously have no clue about what I'm talking about. 9/11 woke us up and showed us we can't just leave terrorists alone. (Last time we did we lost the WTC). Saddam supports terror, so how do we know he would not support action against the US? Bush said in his 2002 State of the Union that we would not support countries who fund, house, or support terrorist. Saddam matches almost all these catagories. He's gotta go. Then its off to Syria.

Quote:Only a liberal would equate 3,000+ lives lost and pissing Americans off... &nbsp;

What, you weren't pissed?

Quote:the connection? Brutal dictators and terrorism... you really don't see the connection there?

No.

Quote:Oppressive regimes and terrorism?

No.

Quote:You don't see the connection there?

No.

Quote:Not only in Israel and Turkey has Saddam been a terrorist... Kuwait

You are confusing "terrorism" with "armed invasion." If you equate the two (and I don't), then one might have to conclude United States is guilty of terrorism right now.

Quote: and most importantly, IRAQ...

Tyranny is not terrorism.

Quote:No... Saddam's connection with Al-Qaida... you moron.

What connection?

Quote:Dude, you obviously have no clue about what I'm talking about.

We agree on this.

Quote: 9/11 woke us up and showed us we can't just leave terrorists alone.

And we responded. In a few short months, our government toppled the government responsible for harboring the terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11 massacre.

Quote:Saddam supports terror, so how do we know he would not support action against the US?

Because, like, he hasn't supported terrorist action against the United States?

Quote:He's gotta go. Then its off to Syria.

Did I miss something? When did Syria attack us?



Have we all lost our minds? Where does this stop?

:rolleyes: I'm sick of your "liberal psycho-babble" as BPD would put it... You liberals have all the answers... just no means to acheive them... and you will fight till the last word to defend a brutal dictator who GASSES HIS OWN PEOPLE but isn't a terrorist...

Yeah... gassing your own people is not terrorism... you learn somethin new every day.

RochesterFalcon Wrote:

Quote:Saddam supports terror, so how do we know he would not support action against the US?

Because, like, he hasn't supported terrorist action against the United States?

Quote:He's gotta go. Then its off to Syria.

Did I miss something? When did Syria attack us?

1. He showed much happiness when he recieved the announcement that the WTC had been bombed. Al-Qaida operatives have been seen in Baghdad (though I don't connect him to Al-Qaida, but its still providing refuge for terrorists). I mean, even the french were sympathetic for the WTC attacks. But Saddam gloated in happiness. Support does not necessarily mean money.

2. Syria never attacked us but suicide bombers and warriors from Syria have fought coalition troops in Iraq. Syria also supports terrorism and is suspected of hiding Iraqi officials.

Quote:and you will fight till the last word to defend a brutal dictator who GASSES HIS OWN PEOPLE but isn't a terrorist...

From the Sept. 23, 2002 issue of Newsweek:

[i]The United States almost certainly knew from its own satellite imagery that Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops. When Saddam bombed Kurdish rebels and civilians with a lethal cocktail of mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX in 1988, the Reagan administration first blamed Iran, before acknowledging, under pressure from congressional Democrats, that the culprits were Saddam

Go ahead, RF, the final tactic...........well,,,,, so and so did it... :rolleyes:

[quote="RochesterFalcon"]

Quote:and you will fight till the last word to defend a brutal dictator who GASSES HIS OWN PEOPLE but isn't a terrorist...

From the Sept. 23, 2002 issue of Newsweek:

[i]The United States almost certainly knew from its own satellite imagery that Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops. When Saddam bombed Kurdish rebels and civilians with a lethal cocktail of mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX in 1988, the Reagan administration first blamed Iran, before acknowledging, under pressure from congressional Democrats, that the culprits were Saddam

So, Rochester, where is Saddam? You obviously know all the inner workings of the Iraqi government since you know what they have and haven't done so well....

-JD

Quote:Because, like, Saddam hasn't supported terrorist action against the United States?

Link? My God, man! You almost sound sympathetic with Saddam and his regime.

Quote: [quote] and you will fight till the last word to defend a brutal dictator who GASSES HIS OWN PEOPLE but isn't a terrorist...

From the Sept. 23, 2002 issue of Newsweek:

[i]The United States almost certainly knew from its own satellite imagery that Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops. When Saddam bombed Kurdish rebels and civilians with a lethal cocktail of mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX in 1988, the Reagan administration first blamed Iran, before acknowledging, under pressure from congressional Democrats, that the culprits were Saddam

Mugabi's troops have reportedly cooked and eaten people to terrify them into submission. Why aren't our troops there? We did not go there to liberate, or to stop attrocities, we went to depose a leader who had become a liability to us under the guise of searching for WMD. Using an issue that was a side benefit of that action as justification for the initial act of aggression is neither logical nor rational.

You people have a quite remarkable ability to self-delude. Kudos.

Oddball Wrote:Mugabi's troops have reportedly cooked and eaten people to terrify them into submission. Why aren't our troops there? We did not go there to liberate, or to stop attrocities, we went to depose a leader who had become a liability to us under the guise of searching for WMD. Using an issue that was a side benefit of that action as justification for the initial act of aggression is neither logical nor rational.

You people have a quite remarkable ability to self-delude. Kudos.

We aren't taking Mugabi out... for one, if we did, you liberals would probably be protesting it more than you did the 2nd Gulf "war". Secondly, we didn't take Saddam out for one reason alone. There were several reasons, and his terrorism wasn't workin for him. We are trying to reason with Mugabi... unlike the Jacques Chirac, who invites Mugabi to come over, hang out and drink tea together.

nate jonesacc Wrote:

Oddball Wrote:Mugabi's troops have reportedly cooked and eaten people to terrify them into submission. Why aren't our troops there? We did not go there to liberate, or to stop attrocities, we went to depose a leader who had become a liability to us under the guise of searching for WMD. Using an issue that was a side benefit of that action as justification for the initial act of aggression is neither logical nor rational.

You people have a quite remarkable ability to self-delude. Kudos.

We aren't taking Mugabi out... for one, if we did, you liberals would probably be protesting it more than you did the 2nd Gulf "war". Secondly, we didn't take Saddam out for one reason alone. There were several reasons, and his terrorism wasn't workin for him. We are trying to reason with Mugabi... unlike the Jacques Chirac, who invites Mugabi to come over, hang out and drink tea together.

You beat the hell out of that straw man, Nate. Well done! :rolleyes:

:cry: I love me some protesters. :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

Quote:

Quote:Because, like, Saddam hasn't supported terrorist action against the United States?

Link?

How about this one:

<a href='http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/10249.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/.../html/10249.htm</a>

That's the State Department's "Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism," included in its 2001 "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report.

These are the paragraphs on Iraq:

[i]Iraq was the only Arab-Muslim country that did not condemn the September 11 attacks against the United States. A commentary of the official Iraqi station on September 11 stated that America was "