September 11, 2004 1:31 PM
Today is the third anniversary of 9/11. I think it's appropriate to remind ourselves of OBL's strategy.
On October 3rd, 2001, four days before the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and 22 days after 9/11, Osama bin Laden sent a letter to Taleban leader Mullah Omar (as published in the Atlantic):
Their threat to invade Afghanistan should be countered by a threat on your [Mullah Omar's] part that America will not be able to dream of security until Muslims experience it as reality in Palestine and Afghanistan.This is clearly not a madman. That was a fairly well-reasoned strategy that puts America in a position where it simply can't win. But amazingly enough, it wasn't Afghanistan that became the huge drain on the American economy as bin Laden predicted. It was the second war that has become the burden. If we'd only just stopped after deposing the Taleban and focused on fixing up Afghanistan while looking for the rat hole bin Laden's hiding in...Keep in mind that America is currently facing two contradictory problems:
Thus our plan in the face of this campaign should focus on the following:
- If it refrains from responding to jihad operations, its prestige will collapse, thus forcing it to withdraw its troops abroad and restrict itself to U.S. internal affairs. This will transform it from a major power to a third-rate power, similar to Russia.
- On the other hand, a campaign against Afghanistan will impose great long-term economic burdens, leading to further economic collapse, which will force America, God willing, to resort to the former Soviet Union's only option: withdrawal from Afghanistan, disintegration, and contraction.
- Serving a blow to the American economy, which will lead to:
- Further weakning of the American economy
- Shaking the confidence in the American economy. This will lead investors to refrain from investing in America or participating in American companies, thus accelerating the fall of the American economy ...
- Conduct a media campaign to fight the enemy's publicity. The campaign should focus on the following important points:
This plan aims to create pressure from the American people on their government to stop its campaipgn against Afghanistan, on the grounds that the campaign will cause major losses to the American people.
- Attempt to cause a rift between the American people and their government, by demonstrating the following to Americans:
- That the U.S. government will lead them into further losses of money and lives.
- That the government is sacrificing the people to serve the interests of the rich, particularly the Jews.
- That the government is leading them to the war front to protect Israel and its security.
- America should withdraw from the current battle between Muslims and Jews.
- Imply that the campaign against Afghanistan will be responded to with revenge blows against America.
2,995 people died in the 9/11 attacks. 1,007 Americans have died in Iraq, 133 in Afghanistan. 11,793 civilians have died in Iraq, and 3,000 in Afghanistan.
Roughly 70 percent of Al Qaeda's leadership has been killed or captured since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration said, although it hasn't published details to back up the assertion. ... But it has failed to stem the spread of Osama bin Laden's ideology and methods, which have been adopted by violent Muslim groups worldwide. Those groups are even harder to track and are capable of great damage, the officials and experts said.
Matt Lauer interviewed President Bush on the Today Show, August 30th 2004:
LAUER: You--you said to me a second ago one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war of terror--on terror, for example, in the next four years?President Bush, the very next day: "Make no mistake about it: We are winning, and we will win."BUSH: I have never said we can win it in four years.
LAUER: No, I'm just saying, can we win it? Do you see that?
BUSH: I don't--I don't think you can win it, but I think you can create conditions so that the--those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world, let's put it that way.
Osama bin Laden's vision for America (09.11.2004)
Next Entry: Outfoxed interviews available for remixing (09.14.2004)
Previous Entry: A Watershed Moment (09.10.2004)
EliasT:
A vile, lying cumrag.
Sun Sep 12 2004 9:40 PM
Sons:
It kills me to do this, but for once I agree with Bush. There will always be people in the world willing to commit terrorist acts against America for many reasons and causes.
Our support of Israel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians is now a prime cause of our becoming a target for terror. But there could be many other causes in the future.
So Bush is right. The threat of terror will never vanish.
Mon Sep 13 2004 2:14 AM
Right Wing Robby:
Its amazing how many view points are shared by Osama and the liberals.
Mon Sep 13 2004 7:19 AM
Paul Stone:
Wow! The Bush administration has basically worked overtime in order to implement Osama's plan.
The L.A. Times this morning had two interesting articles. One was by a Marine General who criticized the decision to go into Falloujah as well as the subsequent decision to retreat outside the city. He must be angry, because he's essentially risking his career on this. It's sad to see all of the most competent officers get slowly but surely get weeded out for political reasons.
Second article discussed an escalation of violence in the Sunni region of the country. Interestingly, there was nothing on the SCLM networks this morning related to Iraq. Just more empty election coverage. It kind of looks like Americans prefer to ignore Iraq for another year or two.
Mon Sep 13 2004 11:34 AM
AD.:
Yes RWB isn't that a quaint observation on your part...Excuse me if I am sounding antagonistic but you are just so annoying...
This is not a dress rehersal...
Tue Sep 14 2004 12:06 AM
Michael:
The threat of terror will never vanish because in their hearts arabs are religious fanatics and religion always breaks things down into good and evil. And good and evil subjectively exist in the eyes of the beholder. Thats why the religious fanatical right wing really sees the whole arab nation as evil. And the fanatical arabs see America as the great evil. From each of their points of view, they are right. And the only recourse they see is to eliminate the evil. And so on and on it goes. Religious idiots missing the point.
Tue Sep 14 2004 12:22 AM
Right Wing Robby:
Attack religion and defend the terrorists. Amazing.
Tue Sep 14 2004 5:41 AM
Right Wing Robby:
Whats amazing is that you are blaming religion for terroism and drawing a comparison between your fellow Americans who go to church and the people who killed my friend.
The Terrorists hide behind religion, they dont follow it. Wise up.
Tue Sep 14 2004 6:01 AM
Tom from Madison:
As long as we're talking about religion, how about discussing the Pope's opposition to the Iraq war? Is the Pope a liberal too?
The point is Bush hides behind religion when he wants to duck a question. E.g., when asked if he discussed the Iraq war with his father, the President told Woodward that he answered to a higher father. Guess what, the Pope and a lot REAL RELIGIOUS leaders also answer to a higher father. There was and is a lot of religious opposition to this war. It doesn't get reported in the U.S.
Finally, the issue is not just whether there the war is justified, it matters HOW THE WAR IS FOUGHT. At this point we have killed somewhere around 16,000 innocent Iraqis. Far fewer would have been killed if Rumsfeld et al had done a better job of planning. There never was the urgency to invade that Bush claimed. His hurry resulted in needless Iraqi deaths. While most Americans may not realize this. Most Iraqis undoubtedly do.
Tue Sep 14 2004 7:33 AM
Michael:
Hey right wing butt-head.
Some people say, that without a separation of church and state, you have religious agendas running country policies. And that ultimately violence begets violence (a basic religious concept by the way)
You think that going to church automatically makes everyone righteous.
Take your head out of the sand.
Ive had friends killed in war. Killed in a war where the people we were liberating didnt really give a damn who ran their country, they just wanted to live without war. Fighting against the terrorists responsible for 911 is a good enough cause to hunt down the terrorists everyone agrees, but going into Iraq without foresight is very questionable. The cost is too high in war. It doesnt make anyone less patriotic to question the persons who send us to war, or their motives or their preparedness or their methods. The ones that sacrifice themselves in battle. Well thats the cost of war. Did you think that its like the movies where only the bad guys get killed? What we have to do as patriots is make sure our leaders only go to war when the reasons are beyond question and when the cause is just. We were sure greated as liberators in Iraq eh? We sure won the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people didnt we? We sure conducted ourselves with honor. We sure were quick and forthright at rebuilding a peaceful Iraq.
Tue Sep 14 2004 7:38 AM
Michael:
I found this interesting article that should stir up comments from both sides of the fence.
Published on Sunday, September 12, 2004 by the Observer/UK
One Man's Resistance: 'Why I Turned against America'
The confused psychology of the Iraqi resistance and meets a Sunni guerrilla who welcomed the Americans at first but is now happy to have black GIs in his sightsby Jason Burke in Baghdad
'There is no greater shame than to see your country occupied'
Early one morning this week, when the police have yet to set up too many checkpoints, Abu Mujahed will strap a mortar underneath a car, drive to a friend's in central Baghdad and bury the weapon in his garden. In the evening he will return with the rest of his group, sleep for a few hours and then take the weapon from its hiding place. He will calculate the range using the American military's own maps and satellite pictures - bought in a bazaar - and fire a few rounds at a military base or the US Embassy or at the Iraqi Prime Minister's office. Then Abu Mujahed will shower, change and, by 10am, be at his desk in one of the major ministries.
Last week he sat in a Baghdad hotel speaking to The Observer. A chubby man in his thirties with a shaven head, a brown sports shirt, slacks and a belt with a cheap fake-branded buckle, he gave a chilling account of his life fighting 'the occupation'. He talked for more than three hours and revealed:
How his resistance group, comprising self-taught Sunni Muslim Iraqis, is almost completely independent, choosing targets and timings themselves, but occasionally receiving broad strategic directions from a religious 'sheikh' most of them have never met.
How it is funded by Iraqis in Europe, including the UK, and from wealthy sympathizers in Saudi Arabia.
How it has rejected any alliance with al-Qaeda affiliated 'foreign fighters' and Shia militia.
How it receives intelligence from 'friends' within the coalition forces.
How it runs a counter-intelligence operation that has resulted in the execution of two suspected spies in recent weeks.
How it is learning increasingly sophisticated techniques and plans to detonate big bombs in Baghdad soon.He also spoke about the difficulties of continuing security operations against them and admitted that many Iraqis do not support their actions. Much of Abu Mujahed's account is corroborated by various independent sources.
Intelligence experts in Iraq talk of three main types of insurgent. There is the Mahdi Army of Shia Muslims who follow the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and have led recent resistance to coalition forces in northern Baghdad, the central shrine city of Najaf, and Basra, the southern port under British control. There is also 'al-Qaeda' - non-Iraqi militants who have come to Iraq to wage jihad. And finally the 'former regime loyalists', who are said to want the return of Saddam Hussein or, if that is impossible, his Baath party.
Abu Mujahed, worryingly for the analysts, fits into none of these easy categories. For a start, he was pro-American before the invasion. 'The only way to breathe under the old regime was to watch American films and listen to their music,' he said. He had been a Bon Jovi fan.
'It gave me a glimpse of a better life. When I heard that the Americans were coming to liberate Iraq I was very happy. I felt that I would be able to live well, travel and have freedom. I wanted to do more sport, get new appliances and a new car and develop my life. I thought the US would come here and our lives would be changed through 180 degrees.'
He spoke of how his faith in the US was shaken when, via a friend's illicitly imported satellite TV system, he saw 'barbaric, savage' pictures of civilian casualties of the fighting and bombing. The next blow came in the conflict's immediate aftermath, as looters ran unchecked through Baghdad.
'When I saw the American soldiers watching and doing nothing as people took everything, I began to suspect the US was not here to help us but to destroy us,' he said.
Abu Mujahed, whose real name is not known by The Observer, said: 'I thought it might be just the chaos of war but it got worse, not better.'
He was not alone and swiftly found that many in the Adhamiya neighbourhood of Baghdad shared his anger and disappointment. The time had come. 'We realized. We had to act.'
Nothing had been planned in advance. There has been speculation, and especially among American officials, that Saddam's henchmen had planned a 'guerrilla war' if defeated. But Abu Mujahed, who described himself as 'a Muslim but not religious', and the others in his group were not working to any plan. Everything they did was improvised. And each of his seven-man group had a different motive: 'One man was fighting for his nation, another for a principle, another for his faith.'
Significantly, his group contains several former soldiers, angry at the controversial demobilization of the Iraqi military by the coalition last year. Others, like Abu Mujahed, have salaried government jobs. The cell is not part of any broader organization and does not have a name, he said. 'We are just local people ... There is a sheikh who co-ordinates some of the various groups but I do not know who he is.'
To start with, the group lacked armaments and know-how. 'We made some careful inquiries. Some people gave us weapons, others sold us stuff they had looted,' he said. The group also sought out experts, often former military officers, who gave impromptu tutorials in bomb-making and communications .
The group's first operation - in June last year - was an attempted ambush of three US soldiers in Adhamiya. It was a fiasco. 'We were so confused and scared we opened fire at random,' Abu Mujahed said. 'They took cover and we ran away.'
Their next try was more successful. The lead vehicle of an American military convoy ran over an anti-tank mine the group had laid in a road. 'We think we killed the driver,' he said. 'We found the mine in a house that had been used by the military during the war. The Americans were not expecting that sort of device.'
Over the next months the group varied the tactics. 'One day we try and snipe them, the next we use an IED [Improvised Explosive Device], the next a mine. We never get any orders from anybody. We are just told: "Today you should do something," but it is up to us to decide what and when.'
Black soldiers are a particular target. 'To have Negroes occupying us is a particular humiliation,' Abu Mujahed said, echoing the profound racism prevalent in much of the Middle East. 'Sometimes we aborted a mission because there were no Negroes.'
In contrast to many militants, who have killed hundreds of Iraqis in the last year, Abu Mujahed said his group was careful not to kill locals. 'We are now planning to use bigger bombs in central Baghdad. But it is hard because there are so many civilians.' Support for the militants is far from universal. They are not attracting new recruits and finances are tight, he admitted.
'We used to be able to use banks and bank transfers. Now it is harder,' Abu Mujahed said. 'Often sympathizers buy cars in Saudi Arabia or Jordan and we get them driven to Baghdad or Basra and we sell them. A supporter in the UK has recently sent an Opel pick-up. But most of our money comes from local people who support what we do but can't fight themselves.'
Tactics depend on resources. The price of rocket-propelled grenades has gone up recently as supplies dried up during August's heavy fighting between Americans and the Mahdi Army in Najaf. The missiles now cost 25,000 Iraqi dinars (around Ł10) in markets in Sadr City, the northern Shia Muslim-dominated area of Baghdad - 10 times the immediate post-war price. The group is restricted to one attack every few days.
There are also spies. He boasted of information from 'friends within the coalition' and said that his group have executed two suspected informers within Adhamiya. One was killed less than three weeks ago, after being under surveillance for a month. 'He had a wife and child but I did not feel bad. He was a fox. He was made to kneel and shot in the head.' Other suspected spies have been threatened and fled Baghdad.
Western intelligence analysts worry that various resistance elements might combine. But Abu Mujahed dismissed the Mahdi Army as 'thugs and traitors who ... welcomed the Americans to Iraq with flowers and then went looting' and said that relations with Islamic militants coming from overseas are worse.
'Some have no allegiance to any group, others have so much money they must come from al-Qaeda. It is impossible to work with them. They are bloody people, far too irrational. They do not care if they kill innocent Iraqi people. They are terrorists.'
Last week US military casualties in Iraq passed the 1,000 mark, most killed since the end of the war by the actions of men like Abu Mujahed. The former engineering student said he does not know how many his group has killed: 'It is impossible to say what has been hit. I could boast of killing maybe 25, but to be honest we don't know,' he said. 'Maybe only five or six.'
'I know the soldiers have no choice about coming here and all have a family and friends,' he added. His justification for the struggle was an inconsistent mix of political and economic grievances and wounded pride: 'We are under occupation. They bomb the mosques, they kill a huge number of people. There is no greater shame than to see your country being occupied.'
He dismissed the interim Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, as 'the Americans' Barbie doll' but then says that if everyone had 'full bellies' no one would fight.
'Iraqis' top priority is to provide a good living for their families. I take home less than 250,000 ID (Ł100) a month and I have four children. I have to pay the rent, doctor's bills, my wife needs something, my house needs something. And a kilo of chicken costs 2,500 ID.'
'The US or the UK are not my enemy. I know that any individual US or UK citizen is very good, but we will keep fighting the occupying forces. We have no choice.'
And with that he left. The Observer was told not to contact him again.
Š Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
Tue Sep 14 2004 7:58 AM
Right Wing Robby:
First of all I havent set foot in a church in 8+ years.
Secondly, the pope is always against war, including WW2. You see, the religion preaches peace, not war. Thanks for backing up my point.
You dont know about the Iraqi people because your liberal networks wont show you them. They point to small groups of people who dont want us there and you by it hook, line and sinker.
Ask the 200,000+ people buried in mass graves how they like their old leader. Funny how your so called news programs dont report that. You are so quick to count every death done my American bullets, but completely ignore mass genocide.
Its people like you who prefer to leave evil in power rather than face it. Its people like you who waffle in the face of true evil. You think they will just go away if you leave them alone. Clinton tried that. He ignored it for 8 years. That didnt solve a thing. 3000 people dead. I am not blaming him, but he had Osama in the palm of his hand and let him go because he didnt have a good reason to take him. How about this Bill, MAKE ONE UP!
Your type has existed is all wars. Standing opposed to it. Look at South Korea. Its a thriving country with a good economy and its people are free. Look at North Korea, its people are starving and it may be the most dangerous country on the planet. South and North would be the same today if your side had its way then. Yes, it took blood and guts of Americans and innocent civilians to get there. Freedom arises.
Germany and Japan another 2 countries among the many that can be pointed out. Your side made to mistake about telling the right wing the USSR would never be defeated. Wrong again. Freedom arises.
Even in our own fight to independence in this country people like you were opposed to war because of the cost. Imagine your side won that argument.
Time and Time again history has proven you wrong. History will prove you wrong again this time. Imagine a world where your ideals were followed. It isnt the world we live in today.
Tue Sep 14 2004 8:34 AM
Michael:
Maybe it's about time you went to church.
Sure there are times when you have to go to war and sure there are times during (for instance) genocide in Bosnia (during the Clinton administration) that you must go in and defend the rights of human beings even at the cost of your own lives. But once again your missing the point. Which is that before you initially go to war you have to think seriously about what you are doing. Is the reason good enough to send your young men to fight and die? Can you handle the cost of war? What will be the cost to the civilians in the country you are trying to liberate? These are not just questions asked to support the position of not going to war, these are questions anyone should ask before going to war. If the reason we went to war with Iraq was because of Sadam's genocide of his own people then thats the case we should have made to the country and to the world. But that was not the case made by GW and the Repubs. We were going after WMDs. WMDs that the inspectors hadn't found but which we were sure were there somewhere.
As far as your hisorical point of view justifying war. You are talking about a different war. If any war's justification was above doubt is was WWII. Today is a different world. Different wars, different people. More economic and politcal interests at play. Not quite so righteous buddy.
From your point of view we would go to war whenever we felt like it. Be careful you don't become the evil that you oppose.
Would you have us attack without thought North Korea, Iran, what about the genocides in Africa. What about the corrupt government in Mexico? Well?
For God's sake don't waffle.
Tue Sep 14 2004 9:04 AM
Tom from Madison:
Hey Right wing Rob,
1) YOU ARE DEAD WRONG. The Catholic church has a doctrine of Just War. I.e. some wars are just and some aren't. The Pope deemed this one unjust.
2) I don't oppose all wars. Afghanistan was justified to remove the Taliban. However we didn't finish the job.
3) If you are going to fight a war, you better figure out what it's going to take to fund it and who will pay for it. Bush didn't do that. He's cutting taxes, watching our industries move overseas while trying to have a long-term war with no end in sight. All wars have a financial price. Bush isn't dealing with this. He keeps charging the bill on our collective credit card.
4) The argument that 200,000 people in mass graves is justification for THIS WAR is bogus. Saddam didn't just recently become evil. He's been EVIL since the 1970s. It was incredibly irresponsible for Reagan, Bush Sr., and Rumsfeld to support him in the 1980s. We supported his regime when we knew he was doing this stuff.
5) The Iraqi people witnessed all of the above. They view us as a threat because we don't have a history of treating them as if they matter. They were pawns against the Soviet Union & they continue to be pawns today.
Tue Sep 14 2004 9:11 AM
dhermesc:
Just out of curiosity, what wars has the Pope deemed just? I been a practising Catholic for my entire life and have never heard a declaration of a "just" war.
Tue Sep 14 2004 9:22 AM
Right Wing Robby:
Tom. Your right, Im wrong. The Church does have that doctrine.
Michael, Its a shame you werent around to tell all your democrats the truth about Saddam. So while your sitting around blaming the Republicans for misleading the USA into war, maybe you can explain these quotes to me.
What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JANUARY 30, 2004
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 |
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 |
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 |"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 |"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 |"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 |"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 |
Please continue Michael. You were saying something about waffling?
Tue Sep 14 2004 9:50 AM
Right Wing Robby:
Pope and Just War Article. Decent read.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_10_130/ai_104578569
Tue Sep 14 2004 10:05 AM
Paul:
Wrong Wing,
Those were all arguments for a policy of forcing Saddam to acquiesce to weapons inspections. I disagreed with Clinton's policy of allowing Saddam to manipulate the inspection process, but Bush has been just as wrong. Bush's policy was to invade, regardless of what Saddam did. Now we have our own West Bank, which is something this country was always missing.
Tue Sep 14 2004 11:56 AM
Michael:
Hey Right Wing Bush Baby
I love the way you respond only to the parts of arguments for which you have pre programmed ammunition.
You keep ignoring the real questions in your knee jerk reactions to prove yourself right. Thats the problem with most republicans its all about them being right and winning.
It was Bush that took us into Afghanistan and it was Bush that took us into war with Iraq. If you can really call that lopsided conflict a war (Its like the New England Patriots playing Jefferson High School). So lets not get too macho about it. The US intelligence was apparently not correct. Didnt you think Powels presentation was a little flimsy even at the time. I found myself thinking (this is all theyve got?). Hey after 911 everyone was giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. So did I. But he seemed to be living in some kind of fog when it came to the reality of post war occupation in a country of muslims. If it wasnt for 911 Bush would have been a lame duck. He doesnt seem to do much else well. But being a military president is right up his alley.
Bush politically waffels on many issues, angering mostly the religious conservatives in his own party. ie. gun control, gay marriage. But has never waffled about the war in Iraq, even if he was wrong about his reasons. see below...
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is apparently ready to abandon a major reason it gave the world for going to war with Iraq: Saddam Husseins purported storehouses of chemical and biological weapons the administration said he was prepared to use against the United States.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, who made the claim in a dramatic prewar presentation to a skeptical United Nations in 2003, virtually withdrew it Monday during testimony before the Senate Government Affairs Committee.
.Your quotes above fall into pre and post 911 dates.
The early quotes 1998 and 1999 are in the context of measured responses such as air and missle strikes. The post 911 comments are all based on faulty intelligence of the Clinton and Bush adminstrations. The mark of a courageous man is one who is not afraid of changing his mind when presented with new facts or when told the facts he knew were wrong or flawed. To not be able change your mind when presented with new facts that should lead you to do so, is the mark of a stubborn idiot whos ego is afraid of looking foolish.Be that as it may. The basic question we are debating is, what is the justification for going to war? Under what conditions would you go to war? What would you consider before going to war? Where is the line? These are the questions we should be debating for the future. The Iraq war is a done deal. If we abandon Iraq now there would be more chaos and suffering of its citizens. What I think we lack is a president who can get us help from other countries. If we are going to set up a true war against terrorism, which could take us into many parts of the world and into many other sovereign states, we should not, and cannot do it alone. It would devistate our economy and make us the major if not the only target of the terrorists, and in turn create a greater atmoshphere of paranoia than has already crept into our lives.
So I put it to you.
Under what conditions and causes should we go to war? How should it be done?
Tue Sep 14 2004 12:32 PM
Michael:
re: Pentagon attack:
Ok check this out. Any comments would be appreciated.
This short film is mind-boggling. Only turn your sound WAY DOWN. It is loud..
In a message dated 9/6/2004 1:37:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, raesok writes:
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf
Tue Sep 14 2004 1:05 PM
Right Wing Robby:
OMG! Shortly after that a UFO was spotted near by! Look I have proof!
http://www.ufonut.com/indexb.htm
Tue Sep 14 2004 2:22 PM
Paul:
Michael,
That's definitely tinfoil hat territory.
Tue Sep 14 2004 2:23 PM
Michael:
Yeah.
Probably put together clips for sensational purposes.
But does anyone have a picture of plane debris (just out of curiosity).
Tue Sep 14 2004 2:26 PM
Right Wing Robby:
Here are some pictures of debris. Its on another conspiracy theory site. But the pictures are pretty clear.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html
Tue Sep 14 2004 3:23 PM
C9:
Why must there always be a right? Why can we not have civil debate? Why can we all not live in the land of facts instead of the land of emotional opinions? Why must we pretend to stay objective by citing references which when clipped show a perspective that might not be the intended?
Is this how you learned to debate in debate class?
Everyone should to admit:
We need a higher bar.
We need to work on due dilligence.
We need accountability.
We need to review and iterate upon our books both law and financial.These things are not met yet a lot of you divide yourselves into camps which are both false. Why can we not just stop trying to win, and start trying to work together. Anyone who can't see this is dysfunctional. Anyone who won't be objective and show a little humility and give up their hubris attitudes is blocking growth.
I don't want to be in a republic, I don't like realizing that most of the adult nation is nothing but children in adults clothing. Accept responsibilities for your faults, work upon them to make them strengths, and bow before humility knowing that we don't know it all.
All I seek is knowledge and fair-play, everyone else seems to be in it for themselves or some notion that 'ideas' can be won. Do some research on how many 'ideas' we've won.. Oh wait. There isn't one.
Its so easy to work with people when you stay objective, humble, and search to understand anothers view and work with them to find a common perspective. If however one person has an emotional vein of thought, its a slippery slope that can rarely be tractionable.
Common now,
-C9-
Wed Sep 15 2004 8:44 AM
Official Website of Shri Srinivasa Ragavaswamy charitable Trust in South India working towards constructing a temple for Sri Srinivasa Perumal (balaji) with Raja Gopuram which is named as Kovai Thiruppathy.
Mon Jan 1 2007 12:11 AM
Email:
   
|
  
 |
