O'reilly Vs. Moore

[hobbes]

BM,

Some people will vote Rep, some Dem, no matter what.

My point was that people like Michael Moore tend to drive the thinking man away from his side rather than toward it as they instinctively withdraw in disgust at his dishonest tactics (and apparent poor higiene).

I am not going to vote for Bush, but my comment was to point out my disgust at Moore and how he is driving me to the "dark side".

[Busyman]

Originally posted by j2k4@28 July 2004 - 23:52
B-

What would you have done about Iraq at the outset?

Remember:

You know nothing contrary to the standard line on WMD-you think they are there, just like everyone else.

There are umpteen U.N. resolutions pending and being ignored; deadlines for Iraqi cooperation have passed.

As a kicker, try also to forget what you have since become aware of regarding the Oil-for-Food fiasco and the attendent U.N. corruption, and also forget the subsequent revelations about French, German, and Russian efforts to keep Saddam afloat.

Well, President Busyman?

Hmmm...anything I say would be shot down if it doesn't go along with what Bush did.

I would have stepped up the intel, using spies whenever possible.

I wouldn't relied on, "See Mr. President, this box shown on this satellite photo is normally used for chemical weapons".

Interesting that Iran and North Korea look a little more promising as "targets for Bush's wrath".

....but nothing's happening is it? Or maybe he's waiting for more intel to state the obvious.

[BigBank_Hank]

So you would have done nothing?

[clocker]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@29 July 2004 - 09:08
So you would have done nothing?

About Iraq?
Much was already being done about Iraq, and the country ( despicable as it was) posed no danger to us.
So no, I would not have done anything about Iraq that we weren't already doing.

Concentrating efforts on hunting down those directly responsible for the 9/11 attack would have had the twinfold benefits of, 1). a plan with a definite beginning and end and, 2). not pissing off the entire rest of the world.

That's what I would have done.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker@29 July 2004 - 10:28
Hi j2, President Clocker speaking.

Why presume that we had to do anything about Iraq?
Even granting the assumption of WMD ( despite UN inspectors inability to confirm), where was the "imminent threat" to the US?

The known protagonists of 9/11 weren't in Iraq, and other countries ( like Iran, for instance) didn't have presumed WMD, they had confirmed stockpiles and were bragging about it.

So why slog into Iraq at all?

If Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that is danger enough. He did attempt to assassinate George Senior, remember. Although people here will tell you that was a hoax, whatever.


Perhaps 9/11 is the lesson in which we learned that a stitch in time saved nine.

Why are you people so fixated on some link between Afghanistan and Iraq. Why does it need to exist?

If Iraq is perceived as a threat, we take action before they do. That was what we learned at 9/11. That's not really a hard concept.

As far as why Iraq?

The answer is so simple that I know you people are being coy when you ask that question.

It had a leader who was letting his people suffer while he built gold toilets, a leader who was in hot water with the UN, a leader suspected of having WMD, and a leader sitting on a crap load of oil.

He was the #1 target in that his down fall would be a humanitarian victory, it would be a PR victory (Iraqi's praising the US for saving them from a madman), and an easy military victory. Additionally, his country would be of potential benefit in the future, if a friendly relationship with the new regime could be obtained.

It was basically the easiest way to make an example of someone.

Although 900 soldiers have been lost in the year and a half in Iraq, that is a quarter of the number of lives lost during 10 minutes on 9/11. And certainly a strong message has been sent to the other countries.

BTW, does anybody really think that Saddam and his son's would have not attempted to get WMD after the inspectors left Iraq? Of course you don't.

Let's stop pretending that we are so baffled that Iraq was chosen as an example to send a strong message to the world.

[BigBank_Hank]

Very well put.

Hobbes I think that you aren’t liberal but just afraid to come out of the closet so to speak.

[SuperJude™]

I have my own theories about life, and I think most people are wholly unaware of many things, so I play it closer to the vest than my comments may indicate, but I will comment on a couple things.

Before anything else I will say what I have said for a while, that there were no Afghani's or Iraqi's on those planes. That said:

Why Iraq? This is conjecture of course, opinion.

1) Setting an example. All this "we are creating new terrorists every day" concept is fine, but seeing as how those bastards hit the US before we even went to war over there, I now think that the "Arab Street" respects only strength. I mean seriously, why do you think every country there 'cept Israel is run like a Mob Family? Think what you will but do you think any states over there are itching to be found supporting terrorism? Seems like Syria has made strives to change a bit, and Libya, well, didn't think I would see that in my lifetime.

2) Proximity. What countries does Iran border? Afghanistan? Iraq? Afghanistan of course does not apply because there is no disputing that Bin Laden had set up camp there, but Iraq is on the other side of Iran, and I just wonder to myself "How does the flag burning, hostage taking, extremist government of Iran feel NOW exactly?" I bet they don't feel as safe as they did 3 years ago doing what they were doing. Show power, gain geographical advantage, let possible future enemy take stock of whom the wish to support.

3) Terrorists. Nobody has said this so far as I have read, so maybe I am cold hearted? I don't think so, but it goes like this: Let's just give all those people a place to come and fight us so we can kill them. I wonder how many terrorists of other than Iraqi origin have been killed in Iraq. Think spies would have found them? I don't.

4) Protection. WMD's have not been found but as late as the later 90's Saddam was manufacturing agents up to and including Anthrax (does anybody even REMEMBER the anthrax events?). I would rather wear a condom and be safe than not and find out I should have. There were reports of them, Hussein did nothing to dissuage opinion to the contrary less you listen to Hans "Ignorance is" Blixx. Remove the threat remove the worry.

5) America the Great Liberator. You euro's seem to resent this, but believe it or not many of us Yanks do believe our country to be the bastion of free thought, free trade, freeDOM. So many of you peple come off small minded about the future. Has nobody considered that maybe some GOOD will come from the US being in the middle east? Having people who care about freedom knocking off despots may send a wide message to the area about rights, freedoms, and the fact that their lives suck NOT cause of the US but because their own leaders sell them out. Well we all get sold out in some way by our governments, but then again I do not live on a dirt floor and I have running water so at least hygenically I am better off than a vast amount of people in the middle east.


I also wholly believe that Bush really believed what he was doing. I DO NOT think he said "we need more oil, let's invade Iraq!" Matter of fact it was the Blood for Oil crowd in their SUV's that first made me see I was not the liberal I had thought I was.

I know this all diverged from the title of the thread, my apologies for that. However this seems to be one discussion spread about a few threads so I hope the liberties I have taken are okay.

These are just some thoughts, based on some things I have read haerd and seen.

One last thought about this: When 9-11 happened I was 100 miles north of NYC and immediatly set off to Manhattan. Here is the thing- there was never ANY goddamn doubt in my mind that the people who did that to us were from the Middle East. None. And it was true. Therefore America coming to the Middle East was bound to happen, and if those people wanted better for themselves maybe they should have used our education system the way so many immigrants have and do for a better life. For a place that is the Great Satan sure seems a lot of people want to live here.

-SJ™

[Rat Faced]

No, I wont say it was a hoax, as i know nothing about it... except that the people that said it was Saddam did have a vested interest and a grudge, so they are hardly going to pass up an opportunity...


It does occur to me to ask:

"How many times did the UK/USA try and take out Saddam?"

He went through an awful lot of actors.. and there is a reason he couldnt sleep in the same place more than one or two nights.

Is this another case of:

"We can do wtf we like, but you can't"?

Its OK for us to kill him, but oh my god...if he goes after a guy that was responsible for almost totally destroying his country (in his opinion)... shock, horror


All world, and ex world leaders are at risk all the time...thats why you spend so much on their security, its par for the course ffs. They knew that before they ran for office, its a risk they take.


As to WMD... how was it common knowledge for the entire bloody world, except the intelligence agencies he didnt have WMD?

I mean, we all watched on the news every week for 10 years as we bombed the crap out of anything that looked as if it could conceivably be used for military purposes.


The "British Intelligence" has been shown to be what was asked for. They didnt "Lie" to the Government, they supplied what was requested. If Hobbes definition of a lie is used, then it can be said the British Government lied... ie intentionally misinformed.

If its not, you can claim they didnt...they made decisions the intelligence provided..which is that which was asked for.

I assume the US Intelligence was the same, considering the weight they put on some very dubious sources which have now admitted providing false information (although that didnt stop them getting put in charge of the new "Sovereign" Iraq)


Im quite sure that the Intelligence Agencies had just as much info "Against" WMD, but thats not what they were asked for..... Powel was apparently very dubious by all accounts (well who would like to stand in front of the UN knowing untold millions are laughing at you?)


I think this is basically one of those things where no one is ever going to agree, and no one is going to find out all the ins & outs.

The whole argument is on shaky and hypocritical ground however, as i said in another thread.....

The only 2 countries ever to spread the technology for Nukes for example...nothing is said about them, despite one of them having loads of outstanding UN resolutions that they are ignoring, and refusing to even sign the non-proliferation agreement, or letting the International Authorities inspect their facilities.... Hypocrits.


BTW SJ:

Prior to the Iran/Iraq war, while saddam was in charge BTW... Iraq had one of the best education systems in the world.

They also had a Free Universal Health system comparable to the best in Europe.

Its not the country of backward peasants that you seem to imply.

And by what right do you think you should enforce your way of life on others?

Im sure that your hearts in the right place, and i'd like to see them adopt democracy etc myself... but it has to come from them. To enforce your way of life on someone else makes you know better than every other country thats tried that against any other country.

Terrorists will never "Come out to fight", that would make them militia. They will always skulk in the shadows. Im sure there are terrorists in Iraq, just as im sure they are in the UK and USA. There are also Iraqi's fighting an invader...and i refuse to put them in the same category.

If it was the USA that was invaded to enforce a "Better" way of life on you, i KNOW that you would be fighting the invader, no matter what the cost... so would I, if it was the UK. The fact that the last lot were bastards would be immaterial...they'd be invaders in my country.


Edit:

Just to clarify.

Yes i was against going in, however you cannot just desert them now that we have gone in, that would be rediculous.

However the coalition forces are "Invaders", so as long as they are there, there will be bombings and deaths etc...

I'd suggest that the whole security thing be taken over by the UN.... using nations that were NOT involved in the coalition. These troops may not be seen as invaders, but as the security they are until Iraq has its own elections.

No one that has half a mind thinks Iraq is "Sovereign" now. All you need to is look at what the coalition countries still control to know thats hogwash. Its a caretaker government in name only...and the Iraqi's and all the other Arab nations know this too. Until elections and a legitimate Government is installed, Iraqi's have every right to fight an invader.

[j2k4]

QUOTE (j2k4 @ 28 July 2004 - 23:52)
B-

What would you have done about Iraq at the outset?

Remember:

You know nothing contrary to the standard line on WMD-you think they are there, just like everyone else.

There are umpteen U.N. resolutions pending and being ignored; deadlines for Iraqi cooperation have passed.

As a kicker, try also to forget what you have since become aware of regarding the Oil-for-Food fiasco and the attendent U.N. corruption, and also forget the subsequent revelations about French, German, and Russian efforts to keep Saddam afloat.

Well, President Busyman?


Hmmm...anything I say would be shot down if it doesn't go along with what Bush did.

Why do you say that?

Because that is what happened to Bush?

I would have stepped up the intel, using spies whenever possible.

You can't.

Your abilities to spy were gutted in the 70s by the Church Committee.

I wouldn't relied on, "See Mr. President, this box shown on this satellite photo is normally used for chemical weapons".

What would you rely on, then?

Interesting that Iran and North Korea look a little more promising as "targets for Bush's wrath".

Iraq, by virtue of it's geographic location, made a much better target from which to fight terrorism (as SJ says) than Iran, and even more so than North Korea, which isn't in the Mid-East.

....but nothing's happening is it? Or maybe he's waiting for more intel to state the obvious.

I think I'll start a thread about "Poor George"

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@29 July 2004 - 11:08
So you would have done nothing?

Hank R.I.F.

I would have stepped up the intel, using spies whenever possible.