Bush making America safer in the future

“"Yes, the will of the UN (as impotent as it is). We had a complete embargo on Iraq and it did work. Oil for food worked wonders…for corruption......"

And we sure made that world body stronger by subverting it with this action. They loose all creditbility now with all of the countries they deal with. Why do we expect others to foloow the UN rules, when there are seprate rules fr us?

Yes, the UN, along with the US, blundered in the begining. More pressure should have been applied to Saddam. We should have encouraged the other countries around tem to co-operate, like sqweezing the Syrians to turn the tap off that ran illeagal oil of out Iraq.

We failed the UN; therefore, the UN had failed. Now that that body is destablized, what happens to all of the good things the UN does?”

“I think we should all just back the U.N. and trash America. I mean, Saddam wasn't THAT bad. We shouldn't be attacking Saddam, we need to continue to attack the President of the United States. He's the real bad guy. Sure, Saddam bought off U.N. officials with oil money, so? Sure, France and Germany had huge financial interests with Saddam, but so? Who cares about U.N. corruption when we have a Republican President in office that we can bash? Freeing Iraq from an oppressive dictator? Screw Bush for such a terrorist ideal. It's our fault Osama is mad anyway. If we want true peace, we need to vote for a Democrat and send Krispy Kreme donuts to terrorists so they don't get really really mad. If it weren't for our historical Christian heritage in this country, we'd be fine. We need to rewrite our history, get rid of any traces of Christianity in this country, and stop pissing those terrorists off. AND WE NEED TO STOP FREEING OTHER COUNTRIES FROM OPPRESSIVE DICTATORS AND GIVING THEM FREEDOM AND LIBERTY, DANG IT! HOW DARE WE! We suck. We voted in a Republican President... we're such a retarded country.”

“get rid of any traces of Christianity in this country

Yeah! Buck for pres! Woot-Woot”

“"lol - bluffing? That's rich. Phaedrus, you're engaging in the ol' "shifting the burden of proof" fallacy.
Sorry, but the burden of proof is not on me to prove that planning and coordination can be accomplished remotely. Every corporation does it, and the idea that Al-Qaeda would NOT is laughable.

The current MO of *global* terrorist org's is a geographic base with financial support.

You're throwing financial support in with geography. They are separate issues. Financial support requires contributors, but not geography.

I would also argue that Al-qaeda's current MO is not one of large geographical bases - but rather of small cellular groups kept in contact through a network of communication.

Take those away, and simple logic tells you that MO won't work anymore. You're saying that this goal isn't worth anything because for the terrorists it's just simply a matter of them getting online.

I have made my case.

The burden is on you to show that your idea is not laughable on the face of it."
Mutt
10:02:13 AM
06/17/04

I thought it was pretty obvious in the first place.”

“WoW! Something I can agree with Buck on!


Hello, Hell? What the temp down there?”

“Laqtis - I like you, but what are you smokin?

the documentation Saddam turned over to the UN was a listing of weapons he said he had. No it did not list any WMD, the point was we absolutely knew he had them at one point, and there was not any documentation about what happened to those stockpiles. Yes we gave him some of those weapons - hence we can be absolutely sure he had them - But we didn't give them to him to use against us or threaten anyone else, egg on our face, sure, but not a reason not to go to war.

As for Al Qaeda this is from CNN regarding the 9/11 commisions report, no remember, the adminstration has spoken about contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam, NOT collaboration if you were misled it was because you read something into it that wasn't there. But there is still danger in those contacts, it shows a willingness to communicate and who's to say what it could have led to:

"The commission's report says bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to [Saddam] Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.

"The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda."

A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994.

Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said."

--- Just because it didn't lead to collaboration previously didn't mean that there wasn't a possibility of that in the future, the willingness to communicate with each other is well documented. I have no problem beleiving that if the opportunity arose for them to work hand in hand for each others benefit, they would have.”

“Vote for me for President and I will promise you 70 virgins and 4 sluts right after the election. Thank you for your support.”

“Cheney is STILL lying his ass off about Al Qaida and WMD at every opportunity and you guys are still buying it.

It's surreal.


And Mutt with his delusions of grandeur, LOL”

“"If you want to compare Kuwait liberation to the French liberation, I'd buy it."

No, I was speaking of the liberation of IRAQ but as you bring up, yes, we did liberate Kuait also.

“We failed the UN; therefore, the UN had failed. Now that that body is destablized, what happens to all of the good things the UN does?"

This is putting the chicken before the egg. The UN failed US. They failed the Iraqi people. They failed the world. Twelve years and how many resolutions with no resolution and none to come. We basically told the UN to enforce their own resolutions or we would do it ourselves. The UN was a straw man way before we called them out. Doing great things? Let’s ask the regular black Sudanese on the street and see what the UN has done for them as 35,000 of their neighbors were slaughtered as the UN did NOTHING.

The UN is impotent by their own actions, not ours.”

“Bison, Bush called Saddam a "ally of al-qaeda" in his mission accomplished speech.”

“Hey, does anyone wanna climb Mt. Everest with me this weekend? I'm leaving Friday right after work, we should be back late Sunday night. I couldn't get any permits but I doubt there's many backcountry rangers around there. Sorry, no fires above 27,000', that's one regulation I will not violate.”

“I would also argue that Al-qaeda's current MO is not one of large geographical bases

But still a geographical base! Why are you smuggling into this the size of the geography?

I have made my case.

Actually, no, not that I can remember. Forgive me if I'm wrong on that.

You seem to think that since it *may* be possible for a global terrorist network to be completely atomized yet still extant on the Internet (lol), that it's just hopeless and we shouldn't even try to deprive them of geographic bases.

What's obvious is that *some* terrorist activity could take place on the Internet. But would it support a global organization, richly funded, with the capabilitiy of striking the mainland U.S. and other points all over the world with 9/11 scale attacks? That's quite a stretch, considering the vulnerabilities of the 'net, the difficulty of training from afar, the difficulty of maintaining a completely atomized network, et al., and so far you've avoided the burden of proof by asserting your "common sense" theme!

Not your best morning of debate, Phaedrus.”

“"Vote for me for President and I will promise you 70 virgins and 4 sluts right after the election. Thank you for your support."

One thing I never understood about Islamofasists was, how do they know the 70 virgins will be a good thing? What if you fly a plane into a building, die and then show up in heaven to find your 70 virgins waiting for you…70 12 year old BOY virgins! Even if they’re women, ever slept with a virgin? It ain’t so good I can imagine. And what do you on day 71?”

“That was a stretch if you took it to mean a collaborator. I took it to mean a fellow supporter of terrorism. The thrust of that part of the speech was that terrorists would no longer have someone who could have produced weapons for them. The language certainly could have been more precise.”

“"The UN is impotent by their own actions, not ours......"

Even though we are (were) the backbone of it?


Bison - "But we didn't give them to him to use against us or threaten anyone else, egg on our face, sure, but not a reason not to go to war......"

WHAT!?!? Why, then would we give tem to him, to mix up a new batch of food? We gave them to him for a reason, to be used. Why didn't we b!tch slap him when he used them against Iran? Because he was one of ours back then. Me thinks you be too young to remember any of what I'm talking about.

Your information is old hat. The Admin told us that that there was a tie between Iraq and AQ, so this is more double speak? If so, why is it that this Admin speaks every sentence with an "out"?

To believe your theory then, it would be easy to say that since I post on a backpacking board, my intention is just to pick up women and phuck them. Hey, there was contact between me and other women on this board, so my intention is to get laid and cheat on my wife.”

“Yes Laqtis, now of course I've never known that you would want to cheat on your wife, But if I new you wanted to cheat and you had in the past, and I knew you didn't like backpacking. Then my suspicion would be that you were here to pick up the ladies.”

““Even though we are (were) the backbone of it?”

Maybe as far as footing the bills and troops for it’s actions. The Islamic block is the most powerful now. That is why nothing is being done about Sudan. Coffe-ann-an knows to go into the Sudan would be cutting his own throat.”

“Buck - you have mail in regards to a different invasion.”

“Q has had more contact with the males here than females. Is it safe to assume you want to pick them up too? LOL!”

“Hey, big boy!

Whatcha doing this weekend?

Wanna going hiking?”

“I hear ya putting up a swiming pool.

I likes to go swiming with bow-legged.......

LOL!”

“"We suck. We voted in a Republican President... we're such a retarded country."
Buck
10:13:17 AM

WE, my foot!

The Supreme Court voted Dubya in.”

“I'm just waiting for the next post that uses the word "hegemony."


Ooops I did it again.”

“I wasn't, um, offering. I don't wanna have sex with a woman on the trail much less a guy! Don't tell Joe, kay? LOL!

Yes, I will be swimming in liquid sunshine by this time next week. YAYA!”

“But still a geographical base! Why are you smuggling into this the size of the geography?

Jeez! Because a group of small training installations is going to be much harder to find than the large-scale bases they had in Afghanistan! If we're talking about training one or two guys at a time, and you're talking about finding and removing all traces of people training as terrorists, then you're talking about wiping out every arab in a group with a gun. The very concept of being able to "deny terrorists a base", when they work in small groups is unrealistic in the extreme.

You seem to think that since it *may* be possible for a global terrorist network to be completely atomized yet still extant on the Internet (lol), that it's just hopeless and we shouldn't even try to deprive them of geographic bases.


1. It is happening now, and it's not just the internet they're using for communication between the cells. Surely you've read about this?

2. I'm saying that denying them a free range of geography is a good thing, but it's unrealistic to expect doing so to erradicate or even significantly reduce the problem.

What's obvious is that *some* terrorist activity could take place on the Internet. But would it support a global organization, richly funded, with the capabilitiy of striking the mainland U.S. and other points all over the world with 9/11 scale attacks? That's quite a stretch, considering the vulnerabilities of the 'net, the difficulty of training from afar, the difficulty of maintaining a completely atomized network, et al., and so far you've avoided the burden of proof by asserting your "common sense" theme!


1. IMO, An attack on the scale of 9/11 won't happen again while the US is guarding against it from the homefront. Using the lack of such an attack as the proof of successful foreign policy is incredibly weak.

2. I'm kind of at a loss as to what you want as far as proof that Al qaeda is a cellular structured organization that uses technology to communicate. I'd be happy to prove that, if you'd like, but it does seem kind of common knowlege to me.

Are you trying to say that without a large base of operations, the cells will unable to communicate or that they will be unable to carry out their roles in a common agenda?”

“Just to prove that not all is doom & gloom in Iraq, I found some good news:

In the New Baghdad, Viagra a Hot Sell

"People are depressed, so they need Viagra and other drugs to give them interest in sex," said Talid Abdul-Amir Shebany, a balding pharmacist who tracks the changing ailments of Iraqis in a worn ledger on his desk. "Viagra sales have at least doubled since the war ended. Lives are not good. There's bombs and tension. When you see bodies and destroyed houses, you have psychological disturbances that affect sexual desire."
[...]
And young Iraqi men — too poor these days to make suitable husbands — are trolling red-light districts with condoms and sex pills as prostitution has flourished and become more open under occupation.
[...]
About an hour earlier, several mortar rounds had landed only blocks away, another in a string of random explosions in a city of smoke wisps and death. "Condom sales are up, too," said Shebany, noting the increase in prostitution. "When a young man comes and buys one Viagra pill and four condoms, that's his night."”

“Hey Bison, I can't check my hotmail addy from work, but I should get a chance tonight.”

“So, Iraq is now being invaded by an arsenal of heat seeking moisture missiles?”

“"And young Iraqi men — too poor these days to make suitable husbands — are trolling red-light districts with condoms and sex pills as prostitution has flourished and become more open under occupation."

There's something we as Americans can proudly crow about!

Cock-a-Doodle-Doo ! !!”

“Getting a check from Uncle Usama would help them along, but they already have their standing orders: kill as many Americans (and allies) as possible. Not too complicated, is it?


Ah, 'hegemony'.... Deng Xiaoping's favorite word, LOL”

“Leave it to Violin to get all worked up about boners! Haha!”

“Tilt, does that mean that Mutt is a communist?”

“"So, Iraq is now being invaded by an arsenal of heat seeking moisture missiles?"

Treebeard
10:55:36 AM
06/17/04

Ahh, I can't believe it took till 11:30 to get my first good TT chuckle of the day.”

“Yeah, levity sure was lacking a bit! :)”

“Mutt?









Mutt?”

“Mutt does like THAT word.”

“Takes a commie to recognize a commie, ey Comrade?”

“Hey Bison, would you agree that calling saddam an Ally of Al qaeda is a lie?”

“Bison?

Mutt?”

“Phaedrus - In context no. Saddam was an ally in the sense that Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization and Saddam supported Terrorism, In the broad sense of the whole War on terrorism that statement is fine. They certainly should have been more careful about the way they stated it. This administration is bad at communications, not so bad that I won't vote for Bush (Of course he's running against Kerry.) Or don't feel he's effective. But Bush is no Reagan. I'm personally confounded by the way they state many things, I understand what's being said, but maybe that's because of my perspective. It would be better if Bush, or any President, could communicate better across perspectives, Reagan could do that, Clinton could too to a lesser extent, even Nixon.”

“Sorry, phaed. Got dumped on at work. I will respond to you.”

“Same here Phaedrus - All of the sudden there was work to do, It'd been so long since I did any, that I had almost forgotten what work was. I was under the mistaken impression that I was here to argue with Laqtis, Phaedrus, Mutt, and Nigal all day (and Buddha Bear, and Treebeard, and MarkO, and Tilt, and Buck etc...)”

“Whoa I forgot Violin how could that happen.”

“Bison, I agree that there is a probalem with communication in this white house. There have been a number of issues where the communication made me think twice on policies that I actually agreed with!

This administration, though, made it pretty clear they believed Saddam had an operational link to al qaeda.

...He also had an established relationship with Al Qaida -- providing training to Al Qaida members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs. He built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction.

Source: Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks at the James A. Baker, III, Institute for Public Policy, White House (10/18/2003).


Statement by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
"Saddam Hussein -- no one has said that there is evidence that Saddam Hussein directed or controlled 9/11, but let's be very clear, he had ties to al-Qaeda, he had al-Qaeda operatives who had operated out of Baghdad."

Source: Meet the Press, NBC (9/28/2003).

There are plenty of these types of quotes. So, if you want to take these things in context, you have to look at them all.”

“Err... Probalem is my new way of spelling problem when typing fast, just for future reference.”

“From the Post:

"But today's prize may belong to Mimi Hall of USA Today, who simply reminds her reader: "In a letter to Congress on March 19, 2003 -- the day the war in Iraq began -- Bush said that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who 'planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.'"

"Make no mistake" about it, Bush linked 'em up!”

“"Bush said that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who 'planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001......"


I'm sure that we could draw the line to where a Saddam's brothers, uncle, cousin, of the man next door of a dood down the block that gave a ride to a person that once sneezed on a chick that once blew Atta.

No problem!”

“What's the story with the Al zarqawi guy (or whatever his name is). The one who supposedly went to Iraq for medical treatment? I haven't kept up on the links to Al Qaeda angle, but it seems to me he wouldn't have chosen Iraq if he didn't think they would aid him. Someone fill in the blanks. I'm sure there's something I'm missing on this story.”

“WASHINGTON -- Standing at the brink of war with Iraq, President Bush is preparing to roll the dice on a high-risk gamble that could remake the Middle East in America's image or trigger an explosion of violence, chaos and terrorism that shakes the world, shocks the economy and destroys his presidency.

"It seems hard to imagine that if the war goes badly, he'll be re-elected," said one Republican strategist, a Bush loyalist. "This is almost sheer risk, from a political calculus."
(March 8, 2003)”

“He was holed up in the north near the Iranian border and in the no fly zone area - outside of Saddam's control. The Pentagon had plans to bomb him 3 times but the White House killed their plans because it would undermine their case for war. (It was more important to attack Iraq than to kill terrorists.) His link to al Queda is somewhat tenuous as well.”