John Prezioso

Just found this one recently, but it's pretty good. Admittedly, I can't vouche for the validity, but I thought it was interesting.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...c/synopsis.html This is an older one, but had some compelling arguments that convinced many people.

quote: I'd really love for you to produce a list of 10 things that are proven that Saddam Hussein has done to actively assist terrorism. Here is a pretty good start.

quote:Can't you at least concede that Saddam Hussein didn't have complete control over his country? Yes. quote:Can't you concede that the United States of America has terrorists training within our own borders? Again, yes. But these missions do not have to be mutually exclusive of one another, as our DOMESTIC war on terror should involve mostly non-military organizations. quote:You wave off the civilian casualties with "all sympathy" but what you don't seem to grasp is that, for all your jingoistic rhetoric about 'freedom' and 'clean water' - that doesn't replace the sons, daughters, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles that have been slain. Yes, slain by TERRORISTS!!! The car-bombs, the suicide bombs, the kidnappings, the beheadings, all perpetrated by people whose evil thirst fot blood would not have just vanished if the invasion would not have taken place. Regardless of what you think, it really gets to me when these poor people are hit yet again by savages. But our anger NEEDS to be directed at the rightful parties. It is, and always has been, the terrorists, and no one else. quote: We could've shut down terrorist training camps with aerial strikes and bombardment. Not needing to spend a half Trillion dollars on an occupation. I disagree. First, the intelligence was not near complete- most of them were well concealed and hard to find. Secondly, air strikes have limitaions on their effectiveness. Ask any of our military brothers here - if you want a job done right, you have to send in ground-pounders to SEE that it is done right. quote:Can't you concede that Saddam Hussein was more worried about having toilets plated in Gold and sitting on plush cushions than he was about attacking the United States? I admit it IS possible that is all he was interested in, but somehow I doubt it. His active support of terrorism and harboring of terrorists makes this a dubioius assumption.

Fair enough. I am going to take a guess, here - Pat Buchanan?

quote:I have no party. There are no Conservatives in Washington... save a precious few. You, like me at first, are presuming too much. It might surpise you to know that this is how I feel as well. There is no guaranteed correlation between Republicans and conservatives. But in distancing oneself from the "mainstream, one needs to be cautious not to travel too far to the extremes. I vote republican all the time, but in a way it's just a lesser of two evils. At least with Republicans there is a chance of some conservatism accidently sneaking through.

It's already been addressed, Race. Silk and I have established his conservatism, and I have admitted I may have presumed too much. Be that as it may, on Iraq, his means of interpreting facts , always being suspicious and assuming the most diabolical of intentions, has a liberal "stench" to it. As you probably know, I don't abide liberalism very well. Even if it is only used sparingly. But I will continue to treat my liberal friends with respect.

Silk, he was supporting terrorism. He had terrorist camps in his country. Some of us THOUGHT he had WMD. Can't you at least concede that, at absolute worst, an error was made? I for one don't believe it was an error, but to say it is a waste of money is ignoring the good that is being done. All sympathies for those innocent Iraqis killed by the terrorist murderers, but the VAST majority of the population is 100% better off. And we have a concentration of terrorists such we have never seen. We don't have to go looking for them - they are ALREADY THERE! I like Jag's Terrorist Roach Motel analogy, personally.

quote: After all, as un-American liberal Bush hater John Quincy Adams said: Look, no one called you a liberal because you disagree with the Bush administration. I disagree with the Bush administration. Hell, I disagreed with Reagan's administration on several things. But someone, somewhere is going to diasgree with you no matter what you do. As the President, you learn to accept that and do what you think is best. Waht makes you SOUND liberal sometimes is when you take an event, a quote, a fact, and put it into a context in such a way that you declare there can be NO OTHER interpretation, regardless of the jumps in logic you need to make in order to ge there. PNAC + Iraq does NOT = diabolical global plot. Just as Higher global temps + elitists scientific agendas doesn't equal man-made global warming. I know you are not a liberal. I've read your stuff. You are one of the good guys. But, on this, your attacking where you should be watching, and assuming the worst when you should be questioning. You are suspicious before trying to understand. I admire your passion, but I wonder if it isn't a tad misplaced?

quote:You're going to have to help me find that. Google isn't turning up anything using those topics that is relevant to the Congressional Database. Post a link or something. There had been a link on Rush Limbaugh one time, but it's not there now. Hopefully Soback or Kalshion or myself will find it for us. And before you get on me about Rush Limbaugh, it's only a LINK!

quote:As I've illustrated, Iraq was no threat. Even if they had WMD's, Saddam didn't have the will to use them. As President, I would not have been willing to take that risk. And saying Saddam was no threat is sort of like saying that wack-a-doodle in North Korea is no threat. It is a little too dangerous to assume, imo. Post cold-war intlelligence has brought to light that the Soviets, for the most part, had no violent intentions towards America, following the decision to forego the proposed 1979 invasion/war. Reagan could not have known this however.

Okay, now that we have established that, I know I'm not talking to a loon!

quote: I think any true American would have hoped to never see the day that the United States was an aggressor nation... Agreed, but in my estimation, events have unfolded in such a manner that we are forced to be aggressors. Pre-emptive war still has an aggressor, regardless of whether it is justified or not. Technically, Afghanistan did not attack us either.

It is too simplistic to liken the invasion of Iraq to Poland. And I think you know you are oversimplifying the issue. It can be said of all wars where there was an agressor that there are similarities to the Nazi invasion, but a discussion of specifics easily distinguishes between the 2. Nazi agression was pure, unprovoked agression, for starters. Irregardless of what the PNAC mission statement says, it does not say that ANY of it will be accomplished through conquest. quote: The Pentagon is toying with the idea of black propaganda. This has been a common tactic throughout warfare. I'm not sure waht the problem is.

Lol! Yep, facts. Anyway, I'll be the one to extend the olive branch. You don't seem to want to take me up on my offer, so I'll meet you here. If I got you riled, I apologize. I admit I was trying to goad you a bit, to get you to see the extremes you were taking your line of reason, but it sort of spiraled out of control. But a lot of what you are posting here is on the fringes of rationality, I was hoping we could at least take it back a little to the "normal". Likening Bush to Hitler, does not really wash with you, does it?

On what basis can you compare what Herman Goehring said to what America is doing. It is in this that I am confused. Do you realize what you are saying?

PM or email me for a real discussion. [email protected]

PM or email. This is just going to get the thread locked.

Any time you want to PM me for a REAL discussion, I'm game. Or you can continue to show off your ability to be a child. Which is it? PM, or spam? Don't forget, my email is [email protected]

What is it you would like me to reply to, Silk? -Your comparing Bush to Hitler? -Your assertion that we invaded an innocent country? -Your likening Iraq to the Nazi invasion of Poland -Or your off-hand dismissal of anything I say? Tell me what you are interested in hearing. So far, you've yet to prove you are worth answering. PM or email me for a real discussion. [email protected]

Okay, friend. I have tried to get you engaged in a reasonable grown-up exchange of ideas. Instead, you hurl insult after insult. I guess you are afraid of someone who isn't bullied by your thread spamming and doesn't get all worked up by your inflammatory tirades.

Yes, you ARE indeed going off the deep end, my friend. Any time you want to take a breath and engage someone on ideas, you just let me know. You aren't afraid, are you?

And this "logic" is what you would have me answer? As well try to argue with Ted Kennedy. Anyway, I'll take that as a no. It is a small man indeed who can not be bothered to consider the viewpoints of others.

I keep changing the subject huh? Who keeps on bouncing around? Grow up and stand still. What you consider debating with "one hand tied behind my back" is actually debating like an adult.

And your problem with is, what? A reason to invade was given. Would you like me to explain it, so that you might try to learn why someone else disagrees with you, or are you going to continue bouncing around? Heh, you're probably three threads away already while I post this.