Jump to content

What al-Quaida really wants


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:

Things fall apart when your sources read "alleged ties" and "reportedly"

I'd like government sources (this was Bush's claim) that list solid links.


Under other circumstances, I would agree with you. But these connections are no more ephemeral than the ties you make between PNAC and the plot for American expansionism through force.

quote:

I'd like government sources (this was Bush's claim) that list solid links.


I regret to say that I am not in fact privy to high level intelligence the president has access to!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Fair enough. But I ask you, what is wrong with a conservative news source? Their certainly no shortage of liberal ones!

I read everything. I'll even read CNSNews. But Conservative or Liberal - there is a filter and you have to read between the lines to get the truth out of it.

Since we went to war over Iraq's ties to terrorism, I'm quite certain that the government prepared an extensive case of facts...

I even think there might have been one or two lines that mentioned something about terrorism in the resolution for use of force that took us to war...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No just the opposite.

I'll tell you what. For every OFFICIAL item you post that PNAC's policy is what was implemented here, I'll post one OFFICIAL item that shows Iraq's ties to terrorism.

You want to live in a world of certainties and absolutes, Silk. And while that would be nice, sometimes VERY important decisions need to made on imperferct data and less than conclusive evidence. But condidering Hussein's history AND the amount of evidence that SUGGESTS, or POINTS TO Saddam's terrorist ties, most people not looking for a reason to find fault in the decision to go to war accept that the evidence was overwhelming.

I certainly find it so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was so overwhelming why can't you find any? Seriously - it's just been repeated so often that people don't question it.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

- Joseph Goebbels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not perpetrating a lie, my friend. It's like a murder trial. Sure an eyewitness is always preferred, but failing that, you go on beyond a reasonable doubt. It is an imperfect solution in an imperfect system, but we do what we can with what we have.

Why are you so quick to dismiss information that supports what most people already know about Saddam? Just because it isn't 100% cut and dried fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to think we'd look long and hard and identify solid facts before sending U.S. Soldiers to die in furtherance of U.S. goals. Especially when we are dealing with possible deaths in a civilian population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were MORE deaths in the civilian population in Iraq by Saddam Houssien then there are civilian deaths now.

So if you are going to go by civilian deaths, Iraqi's are MUCH BETTER off now that we have invaded and taken out Saddam, then before we invaded with Saddam in power.

Before, with Saddam in power, the death toll BY the government was 100 per 100,000, TODAY, it is 30 per 100,000.

So, are they better off now, or were they better off then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those figures can be misleading. Saddam was indeed brutal, and after the failed uprising against him is when most of these deaths occurred... in addition to the sanctions that the United States was enforcing, which didn't affect Saddam so much as the Iraqi people.

There are more dynamics than basic numbers... and I thought that the sanctions and oil-for-food failed to take into account the civilian toll.

But it is indeed a fact that the Iraqis didn't have to spend every day with car bombs exploding, beheadings, kidnappings, and mass destruction that has become a way of life since the US invasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify - I think it is irrelevant what the Iraqis lives were like before, considering that the U.S. Constitution doesn't mandate that we police the world. Millions were dying of starvation in Darfur - if we are so worried about the humanitarian aspect, why not spend half a trillion providing food, medicine, and basic needs to them?

(Interesting side-note, Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the Middle East)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point about PNAC is not so much one of mass conspiracy but one that should certainly arouse suspicion in just about anyone's mind. To dismiss it out of hand as meaningless is simply disingenuous.

The danger presented with PNAC and it's members being in positions of power and occupying the right hand seat of the President is one of predisposition. Check their site under the 1997 - 2000 link and just look at how much of it deals with invading Iraq and destroying Saddam. Does it leave you with any doubt that some of Bush's advisors were predisposed to the idea YEARS before 9/11??

In short, these guys would have supported it no matter what. WMD's no WMD's it did not matter to them, and you can take that to the bank. It's not much of a stretch to imagine that these guys actually encouraged it.

For Prez and Jag to poo-poo the possibility is just plain willful ignorance. To raise the point that it's even more ridiculous just because it's posted on a public site is nonsense and does not change the facts PNAC so unabashedly advance with documents dated in 1998 titled "How to Attack Iraq" (and pretty much everything else on their site.)

Do any of these names ring a bell?

Richard L. Armitage

William J. Bennett

John Bolton

Richard Perle

Donald Rumsfeld

Paul Wolfowitz

Dick Cheney

Jeb Bush

If reading the information on their site isn't enough to raise questions in your minds then you guys really need a reality check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, Bush was elected to a second term, if he decides to do what he wants to do, then he has EVERY right to do so.

He is the PRESIDENT, and got more votes then Clinton EVER got, he got his mandate, get over it....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

First off, Bush was elected to a second term, if he decides to do what he wants to do, then he has EVERY right to do so.

He is the PRESIDENT, and got more votes then Clinton EVER got, he got his mandate, get over it....

Not sure where you are going with this, but you just described the President's role as if this were a Totalitarian society.

In any event, sure Bush can do what he wants, but shouldn't we question his choice of cabinet members when they so obviously fall on the side of questionable political motivation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

The point about PNAC is not so much one of mass conspiracy but one that should certainly arouse suspicion in just about anyone's mind.

I am not really a guy pre-disposed to suspicion, but if the PNAC charter makes you uncomfortable, that's one thing. To say unequivocally that it is what is driving what is going on in Iraq is simply wild conjecture, and another thing entirely.

Like I have said before, the PNAC ideals are not all that radical to me really. Nowhere in there is a provision for forceful implementation, however. If the PNAC ideals were being used as the cornerstone for expansion through agression, I would certainly rail against it. But There is nothing to indicate whatsoever that this is what is going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

quote:

The point about PNAC is not so much one of mass conspiracy but one that should certainly arouse suspicion in just about anyone's mind.

I am not really a guy pre-disposed to suspicion, but if the PNAC charter makes you uncomfortable, that's one thing. To say unequivocally that it is what is driving what is going on in Iraq is simply wild conjecture, and another thing entirely.

Like I have said before, the PNAC ideals are not all that radical to me really. Nowhere in there is a provision for forceful implementation, however. If the PNAC ideals were being used as the cornerstone for expansion through agression, I would certainly rail against it. But There is nothing to indicate whatsoever that this is what is going on.


Read more than the charter Prez. There are MANY documents dealing specifically with Iraq and most of them are dated well before 9/11.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Not sure where you are going with this, but you just described the President's role as if this were a Totalitarian society.


He is saying that those of your political persuasion need to understand that the majority of voting Americans did not agree with you when it counted, i.e. election day.

He was elected by a clear majority of the people, now he is doing his job as he sees fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

quote:

Not sure where you are going with this, but you just described the President's role as if this were a Totalitarian society.


He is saying that those of your political persuasion need to understand that the majority of voting Americans did not agree with you when it counted, i.e. election day.

He was elected by a clear majority of the people, now he is doing his job as he sees fit.


My political persuasion?? What would that be Prez?

I have fewer issues with Bush than I do with the overall direction this country is taking. While Bush may be somewhat responsible for that direction, it is mostly in the hands of congress. I'm no Bush hater, more of a US policy dissenter. I'm actually much more of a centrist even if I don't come across as such.

Last time I checked, the office of the President wasn't about mandate, it's about service to the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Last time I checked, the office of the President wasn't about mandate, it's about service to the country

Agreed. But any president is going to take re-election as a message from the people to keep it up, whether he's right or not in this interpretation.

quote:

My political persuasion?? What would that be Prez?


The persuasion you have illustrated here - you don't like Bush policy, believe the Iraq war was wrong, and that PNAC is a real threat. Am I misrepresenting anything? Correct me if I am at all mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

quote:

Millions were dying of starvation in Darfur

Comparing apples to oranges. No similarities at all.


I'm just saying that if we have humanitarian motivations - why aren't we going after the bigger crisis?

That throws us back to the "Saddam has WMD's" angle - which, even if he did; he was no threat for reasons I've outlined continuously. Since he didn't... there is no justification. We invaded a country that had never attacked us, had never threatened to attack us, and had no means to attack us.

What big boys we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I'm just saying that if we have humanitarian motivations - why aren't we going after the bigger crisis?


You've never heard me proclaim humanitarian causes in Iraq. In my view, that would be disingenuous, as I know the main goal was eradication of terrorism and the support for terrorism in Iraq.

There have been amazingly positive humanitarian advances (which I'm sure you probabaly recognize, but I understand this is not the point) but they were not the main reason.

What the Bush administration says about that is politics, not reality.

But claiming that the invasion was injustified when your reasoning for the injustice is what was discovered AFTER the invasion is quite a paradox.

I don't really want to get into it again, but most people I know, a lot of whom don't support the Iraq war, recognize that Iraq had ties to terrorism. They, like you, question the REAL motives of choosing Iraq over Iran or Syria, yet the recognize what you will not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I recognize that 'ties to terrorism' can be defined extremely loosely. I've already talked about proven $25k payments to suicide bombers. beyond that, there is no 'proven' link to anything.

Basically Iraq had the weakest ties to terrorism - weaker than the IRA. Iran, right next door, had extensive ties to the organization that actually attacked us - al Qaeda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, don't you think that an official iraqi government program that regularly paid $25,000 to families of people that murder civilians counts as a serious link to terrorism ?

I would say that is an incentive to terrorism, a cause of further terrorism, and a sign of a seriously sick government.

Let's not minimize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...