Zarqawi is dead...

[Rat Faced]

What we have here, then, is a very basic disagreement.

In today's world (a world I am somewhat at odds with), it would seem that the oppressive/repressive/regressive/aggressive Islamic-fundamentalist imperative is morally equivalent to Democracy.

I disagree.

Then why did you (The USA) arm, finance and encourage them whilst the Russians were in Afganistan? The Afgan government of the time, after all, had been democratically elected and invited the Russians in.

I have problems with certain aspects of our foray into Iraq, but if the pre-war forecast was for a prolonged post-Saddam insurgency wherein terrorists would flood the country in order to fight us infidels, then fine; better there than here.

Not for the Iraqi's... if you want to fight a battle, then i think its morally incorrect to involve an innocent population that was previously not part of the fight. You just lost the moral highground in a sentence.

We can't negotiate them out of existence, the U.N. is totally ineffective, and we cannot abide their continued freedom to act as they have.

Then why didnt you stop them beforehand? We all know that the last thing Clinton did was tell Bush that Bin Laden and terrorism was his most important issue and gave a load of intelligence on which to continue, if he wished, the eradication of their training camps through bombing and/or assisination etc.. the new administration chose to ignore the advice and intelligence until it was way too late.


The poor Iraqis are suffering the effects of the cancer which has unfortunately chosen them as host, and if the terrorists fought according to Geneva rules, this would have long been over, but, hey, we're bound by the rules, right?

Hang on... a couple of sentences ago, you just admitted that it was a case of "better there than here", implying that was the reason... what exactly is your argument? YOU FORCED THEM TO BE HOST, the opposition didnt chose the battlefield, you did!

How's about a U.N. resolution that we take the gloves off and fight....fair?

My opinion, of course.

Nothing that has happened couldnt have been predicted. I managed it before the invasion and without the highly bought intelligence. I'm not exactly in the highest IQ ratings and i dont have professional qualifications in psychology. It was just plain bloody common sense ffs.

[j2k4]

The West knew what, exactly?

Precious little, as it turns out; the "question" of WMD was not a question, beforehand-EVERYONE believed Saddam possessed them, and EVERYONE had intelligence that indicated this was so; we had even seen him use them in the past.

Everyone? You seem to be conveniently forgetting the inspectors who were there immediately before the invasion, the ones who were forced to leave before finishing their job, and who's subsequent report concluded that in their opinion there were no WMDs. Why did Bush order the invasion only two weeks before the inspectors were due to finish their task, could it have anything to do with the leaked details of their probable conclusions?

I have emboldened the operative statement in your post; it should cure that which ails you, as well as Rat.

Odd, too, your following statement to the effect that the inspectors' ...subsequent report CONCLUDED with their OPINION that there were no WMD.

Such reports are supposed to CONCLUDE with FACTS, I believe, and NOT mere opinions.

BTW-

The proper acronymic term is WMD, not WMDs, unless you have unilaterally decided to ignore the hidden 'S' on the end of the 'W' (short for WEAPONS) in WMD.

Sorry to be indulging that particular peccadillo at this juncture, but, well...there it is.

[Rat Faced]

Actually, the correct acronym is NBC.

WMD is a spin thing.

Plus... they couldn't give facts as they were refused the equipment that would have furnished facts, as you well know.

[j2k4]

What we have here, then, is a very basic disagreement.

In today's world (a world I am somewhat at odds with), it would seem that the oppressive/repressive/regressive/aggressive Islamic-fundamentalist imperative is morally equivalent to Democracy.

I disagree.

Then why did you (The USA) arm, finance and encourage them whilst the Russians were in Afganistan? The Afgan government of the time, after all, had been democratically elected and invited the Russians in.

The world was a vastly different place in 1980, Rat.

Any nascent terrorist movement was somewhat less than apparent at the time, and Soviet expansionism was the largest foreign policy concern on our plate.

I would have thought you old enough to remember all this...

I have problems with certain aspects of our foray into Iraq, but if the pre-war forecast was for a prolonged post-Saddam insurgency wherein terrorists would flood the country in order to fight us infidels, then fine; better there than here.

Not for the Iraqi's... if you want to fight a battle, then i think its morally incorrect to involve an innocent population that was previously not part of the fight. You just lost the moral highground in a sentence.

The "moral highground"?

Who said anything about "moral highground"?

There is nothing moral about war; I have never said there was.

Along the same line, however, have you any comment on the morality of terrorism?

BTW-I have heard that Al Qaeda is shopping for a country, and has Somalia in it's sights.

Would you favor admitting them into the U.N.?

We can't negotiate them out of existence, the U.N. is totally ineffective, and we cannot abide their continued freedom to act as they have.

Then why didnt you stop them beforehand? We all know that the last thing Clinton did was tell Bush that Bin Laden and terrorism was his most important issue and gave a load of intelligence on which to continue, if he wished, the eradication of their training camps through bombing and/or assisination etc.. the new administration chose to ignore the advice and intelligence until it was way too late.

We all "know"?

I "know" I heard testimony from the Clintonites to that effect; beyond that, it's difficult to tell for sure.

Clinton didn't lift a finger over the USS Cole bombing, yet he "told" Bush UBL and Al Qaeda should be his highest priority?

Actually, I think the reason we didn't stop them beforehand was precisely the same reason they weren't stopped in Spain, or (ahem) London.

The poor Iraqis are suffering the effects of the cancer which has unfortunately chosen them as host, and if the terrorists fought according to Geneva rules, this would have long been over, but, hey, we're bound by the rules, right?

Hang on... a couple of sentences ago, you just admitted that it was a case of "better there than here", implying that was the reason... what exactly is your argument? YOU FORCED THEM TO BE HOST, the opposition didnt chose the battlefield, you did!

The "opposition" is not a native force either, Rat.

Call that one a draw.

How's about a U.N. resolution that we take the gloves off and fight....fair?

My opinion, of course.

Nothing that has happened couldnt have been predicted. I managed it before the invasion and without the highly bought intelligence. I'm not exactly in the highest IQ ratings and i dont have professional qualifications in psychology. It was just plain bloody common sense ffs.

Yeah.

If you are claiming to have predicted all of this beforehand...well, let's just say I think that's just a wee bit of a stretch.

You may have been a doubter, but I don't recall any lengthy prognostications.

If this continues, I get dibs on green and purple.

You can have yellow.

[lynx]

If I've read that right you argue that the opinions of those opposed the war are invalid because there were only expected conclusions rather than hard facts. This despite the observation there would have been hard facts if the US/UK hadn't interfered in the inspection process, and the expected conclusions have been proven to be correct.

Yet at the same time you argue that those governments can create a war based only on the so called "intelligence" of some shadowy figure, who's identity still has not been revealed. Yet even though that "intelligence" has been totally discredited, it was still valid to follow it.

Nice going.

Btw, don't bother with colours. When you get enough they will simply merge and become white, which you will no doubt then define as black.

"Enough is enough," a determined Bush told reporters. "We are not fooled by Saddam's devious attempts to sway world opinion by doing everything the U.N. asked him to do. We will not be intimidated into backing down and, if we have any say in the matter, neither will Saddam." Bush added that any further Iraqi attempt to meet the demands of the U.N. or U.S. will be regarded as "an act of war."

[Busyman™]

"Enough is enough," a determined Bush told reporters. "We are not fooled by Saddam's devious attempts to sway world opinion by doing everything the U.N. asked him to do. We will not be intimidated into backing down and, if we have any say in the matter, neither will Saddam." Bush added that any further Iraqi attempt to meet the demands of the U.N. or U.S. will be regarded as "an act of war."

I like that one better..........

Maybe if he didn't attempt to meet the demands, he'd have been better off.

[yyyang]

Don't know this man before.

[GepperRankins]

i noticed his corpse is pictured on western news.

[lynx]

"Enough is enough," a determined Bush told reporters. "We are not fooled by Saddam's devious attempts to sway world opinion by doing everything the U.N. asked him to do. We will not be intimidated into backing down and, if we have any say in the matter, neither will Saddam." Bush added that any further Iraqi attempt to meet the demands of the U.N. or U.S. will be regarded as "an act of war."

I like that one better..........

Maybe if he didn't attempt to meet the demands, he'd have been better off.

I liked that one too, but I just put it down to Bush's poor grasp of the English language. Now that I think about it, maybe it wasn't...

[Busyman™]

I like that one better..........

Maybe if he didn't attempt to meet the demands, he'd have been better off.

I liked that one too, but I just put it down to Bush's poor grasp of the English language. Now that I think about it, maybe it wasn't...

You need check out a recent HBO comedy special.

Lewis Black: We're All Screwed.

Quality stuff. Trust me. I've already watched the 1st 30 min. and he hasn't even talked about when he performed at the White House Correspondents Dinner.