How Fucking Convenient: Iraq and Al Queda

[FMJeff]

I can't say whether or not its true, but I find it a little too convenient that there are NOW ties between Al Queda and Saddam's administration. Why doesn't Condoleeza just say Saddam is the anti-christ and he invented AIDS. I'm not defending Saddam, but it seems to me that the government is just feeding the propaganda machine to justify this war. It wasn't enough Saddam has chemical and nuclear weapons...now he's in cahoots with our sworn enemy too. Why wasn't this information released weeks ago...what...we JUST discovered the Al-Queda-Hussein link? Bullshit. They are cleverly building up the hatred, giving just enough to feed the fire, keep it burning, until everyone is ready to blow shit up.

Anyone else agree?

<center><img src="http://members.aol.com/sabanj666/ass.gif">
<br>
Stupid is as stupid does.</center>

[A.J.]

Shortly after 11 September, when all the information about the hijackers began to revealed, weren't there reports of links/meetings between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence agents in Europe?

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[mindtank]

I can't say whether or not its true
Stupid is as stupid does.


<IMG SRC="http://www.carisi.com/mindtank.gif">
What if we are really on Earth2 and the other one is Earth1 ?

[Death Metal Moe]

Oh gimmie a break.

Now were gonna question if Al Queda is in Iraq too? OF COURSE THEY ARE!

Iraq is a terrorist nation that most definitly funds and supplies these faggots.

The thing that pisses me off about this is the rest of the world will sit by as Bush cleans up the problems.

What's it gonna take? For a huge terrorist attack to happen in France and other countries before they back us?

And all those Muslim countries should be ashamed of themselves. Saddam has killed more Muslims in his own country that anyone I know.

<IMG SRC=http://unhallowed.com/sigs/MaskedEarth.gif>
www.unhallowed.com
<marquee>People's chioce: MOST VULGAR POSTER!! FUCK YEA!!</marquee>
SUPER CALLER #666!!!

[A.J.]

Iran and al-Qaeda:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/813034.asp?0cl=c4

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[DarkHippie]

we know they are in cahoots, but they bring it up now to "seal the deal" to get us to go into Iraq. Its the administration trying to manipulate the public, and of course its going to work, because people are sheep, and when sheep are scared, they huddle around the shepherd . . .

even as they're getting fleeced.

<IMG SRC=http://czmachine.50megs.com/images/dhsig1.gif>
<marquee>Who is DarkHippie? "You look like an Amish child molester"-- Jim Norton. "Watch out for this one. Someday he's gonna snap and kill you all."-- Rich Vos </marquee>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Transcendental Blues: a journal</a>

[FMJeff]

I'm not questioning whether nor not it's true...I'm talking about the intentional release of information to manipulate the public into supporting this war. I'm sure Al-Queda isn't a new organizatoin. They've probably been around for years, I'm willing to bet since before the Gulf War.

If its true, then Hussein has been in association with terrorists for years...I just don't remember hearing that as a justification for the Gulf War. No, Iraq wanted oil, we wanted oil, we kicked Iraq's ass. Rent "Three Kings"...you'll see what I'm talking about.

Terrorism is a hot topic right now, so by associating Hussein with terrorists it makes our case that much stronger against him.

And Mindtank, how about providing an arguement instead of quoting me. Might be more effective.

<center><img src="http://members.aol.com/sabanj666/ass.gif">
<br>
Stupid is as stupid does.</center>

[Contra]

nevermind, a problem solved.

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/contra.gif>
Batosai The Manslayer

This message was edited by Contra on 9-26-02 @ 3:08 PM

[DC Reed]

yeah, the worlds full off backastabbing assholes and moronic pig fuckers. my friends or shall i say enemies in Iraq, you are in that category.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/dolphinssig.jpg"

Thanks Aggie + Silent Spic!
<marquee behavoir=alternate>RonFez.net Secretary of State - "A Jailbait Studmuffin -Angel Amy" - Proud half of the Dolphins Fans on the board - Aggies bitch and key money maker</marquee>

[TheMojoPin]

What about Al Queda ties to Saudi Arabia? Or is that just too obvious and make too much sense? I think people are just getting antsy because enough brown people aren't being blown to pieces.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[The Nature Boy]

The convient kool-aid to drink is that the Gulf War was about Oil. If you can produce any fiscal or journalistic evidence showing a shread of truth to this, I'll eat a turd at the next Ron and Fez gathering. This common, "man-in-street" philosphy can't always be employed to address more complicated problems. If the war was about oil, Iraq would be a United States territory, when our forces were standing on Main Street Baghdad, with a bead on Hussein, and we'd be paying 85 cents a gallon for gas. The action was carried out in an effort to curtail galvanization of support for an all-out war against Israel. And the same sort of galvanization occurs again, with Hussein being the most logical and capable organizer of such a strike, hence we go to war again. This time however, we have the continued protection of U.S. interests and the retribution for the said events of 9/11/01 instilling national support. Now, you may think there are sinister motives behind the ties being leaked now, but it's never been any different in ANY war in history. Confederate Soliders used to bring torn dresses they claimed were collected after Union soliders had their way with Southern virgins. Listen to FDR's speech on December 7th, which was a war rallying speech to a country that had been reluctant to commit. Given our geographical position, American's are typical isloationist when it comes to global conflict. The wishy washy nature of the Vietnam war instilled a healthy skepticism in our overseas interests, but not everything in this world has a hidden agenda. It is in our domestic interests to go to war with Iraq, but the greater beneficiary will probably be Israel. But trying selling to middle America that we are sending their sons to save a bunch of Jews, it will fly like the proverbial Concrete Concorde. So the information begins coming out in pure press form now, like any good PR company would do, because we'll probably go to war when it's winter in Iraq, for as cool a conflict as possible. Those wheels go in motion now.
But there's nothing to particualrly suspicious of. There isn't ALWAYS a conspiricy, there isn't always subterfuge at play. Don't take all your news from Stern.

Bon Jovi Fan Since Day ONE!

[DarkHippie]

http://www.theonion.com/onion3835/wdyt_3835.html

<IMG SRC=http://czmachine.50megs.com/images/dhsig1.gif>
<marquee>Who is DarkHippie? "You look like an Amish child molester"-- Jim Norton. "Watch out for this one. Someday he's gonna snap and kill you all."-- Rich Vos </marquee>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Transcendental Blues: a journal</a>

[DC Reed]

convient they also run our convience stores!

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/dolphinssig.jpg"

Thanks Aggie + Silent Spic!
<marquee behavoir=alternate>RonFez.net Secretary of State - "A Jailbait Studmuffin -Angel Amy" - Proud half of the Dolphins Fans on the board - Aggies bitch and key money maker</marquee>

[Yerdaddy]

we know they are in cahoots
I'm not questioning whether nor not it's true
I am questioning whether it's true. This administration has been throwing empty allegations about Saddam and al-Qaeda at the American public for months now and they've all been shown to be untrue. They spent months citing the Czech intelligence report that Atta and an Iraqi inttelligence agent met in Prague, even after both the FBI and the CIA have discredited the Czech report, despite pressure from deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz to play along.

Rumsfeld and others made much of the reports that al-Qaeda was operating in Northern Iraq, repeatedly trying to scare the public into believing that this was an al-Qaeda cell that Saddam controlled. They always failed to mention that Northern Iraq is UNDER THE NO-FLY ZONE, and is controlled by our allies, the Iraqi Kurds. In fact the so-called al-Qaeda cell was a Kurdish group that may have had sent members of it's group trained in al-Qaeda camps TO FIGHT SADDAM. These are the people that Saddam gassed in his campaign of genocide against them, but all of a sudden they're going to attack the US, which is the only reason they have any freedom at all right now? If one knows anything about this subject, they would conclude that if this group had people trained at al-Qaeda, it was to fight Saddam, and that al-Qaeda would have no problem training them because AL-QAEDA HATES SADDAM. Saddam is a secular dictator who kills Islamic extremists. Al-Qaeda is an Islamic extremist group with the goal of unifying the Muslim world under a shari'a political system. Therefore, Saddam must me overthrown.

This has always been the case and for administration officials to say otherwise, without offering
anything other than half-truths wrapped in speculation is repugnant. It is in fact lies. So when Condi Rice makes this statement that there is a link, but offers nothing in the way of evidence, what I hear is: "we're working on some more fabrication, but it isn't ready quite yet. But stay scared anyway." Next week she'll come out and say that she was Saddam's mistress and that she was swapped with Bin Laden for his goat. And the public will buy it too.

I don't know about other people, but when someone lies to me I don'e think, "well there must be some truth in there somewhere." I hold them to higher standard of evidence afterwards. Especially when they're supposed to be protecting America against the real terrorists, not undermining international cooperation against al-Qaeda by trumping up the charges against a more convenient boogeyman!

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

[Gvac]

I don't doubt for one second that Hussein funds (and probably arms) several terrorist groups throughout the world. Whether he does or doesn't, however, he is still a clear and present danger to our allies and ourselves.



<img src=http://ltrooster.homestead.com/files/GvacSalute.jpg>

Thanks, Rooster!

[JerryTaker]

What about Al Queda ties to Saudi Arabia? Or is that just too obvious and make too much sense?

Neither, we just make too much money off Saudi Arabia for them to be our enemy...

<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/Angelsig2.gif">

<marquee width=300>I look around my room is filled with candles; Each one a story but they end the same. I'll hide away in here the law will never find me; The walls will tell the story of my pain</marquee>

[furie]

this information isn't breaking news Jeff. They talked about a possible Al Queda-Iraq connection last year.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/thansurfadam.jpg" width=300 height=100>
<marquee behavior="alternate"><a href="aim:goim?screenname=furie1335&message=You_are_Number_6">IM:Furie1335
</a></marquee>

<marquee>Where in the nursery rhyme does it say Humpty Dumpty was an egg?
</marquee>

[TheMojoPin]

Whether he does or doesn't, however, he is still a clear and present danger to our allies and ourselves.

Only if we want him to be. He's just going to sit out the rest of his life with his empty rheotoric unless we push him into a corner. Let him have his crappy ass country. If we went after every country that hated us, we'd take out nine-tenths of the globe, France first.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[Yerdaddy]

this information isn't breaking news Jeff. They talked about a possible Al Queda-Iraq connection last year.
Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, and Cheney were talking about it, but the CIA and the FBI have disproved all of the speculation that was being put forward. Fortunately the FBI and CIA are not in a position after 9-11 mistakes to allow themselves to be pressured by the administration to lie about a Saddam/al-Qaeda connection.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

[Pootertoot]

Serve it hot, serve it cold, it still tastes like shit.

Please ignore Saudi Arabia, for they benefit us. Please ignore Pakistan, it's not like they're actively flaunting weapons of mass destruction and their intentions to use them. Please ignore the rest of the world, we're better than them.

Look over here! Terrorists! ::points:: IN IRAQ! ::points some more, jumps up and down::

Let's go kill some sandmonkeys, who's with me?

Not you? Well, you're a communist, then.

<center><embed src="http://www.geocities.com/slfcallednowhere/mario2.swf" width=300 height=100><br>
Take a Chance, Take a Chance
</center>

[Recyclerz]

AL-QAEDA HATES SADDAM. Saddam is a secular dictator who kills Islamic extremists. Al-Qaeda is an Islamic extremist group with the goal of unifying the Muslim world under a shari'a political system. <P>
Exactly. By grouping all the f'ers we hate into one package we are purposefully blinding ourselves as to the most effective ways to defeat them. The Arab/Islamic world knows there is a difference between Saddam and al-qaeda. By using a pretext to make them interchangeable to the American public and to "world opinion", we look like we are unable or unwilling to recognize the differences in the parties over there making it less likely that we'll get the cooperation we need to find & kill the zealot bastards that we should be looking for.


If you can't laugh at the misfortunes of others, what can you laugh at?

This message was edited by Recyclerz on 9-26-02 @ 5:41 PM

[Captain Rooster]

The US plays its cards to its chest. We don't need to reveal all that we know because some news program demands us to.

I am sure we have evidence on Saddam that we do not want to disclose because he will be able to react in a defensive posture if we do.

The Spooks in the CIA have eyes and ears all over the place in the Middle East. Don't let some "war consultant" on CNN tell you otherwise. They have about as much clearance to classified material as the Dominoes pizza guy.

<CENTER><img src=http://ltrooster.homestead.com/files/wolviethinkingSIG.jpg></center>
<center></center>


This message was edited by LTRooster on 9-26-02 @ 5:46 PM

[Yerdaddy]

I don't doubt for one second that Hussein funds (and probably arms) several terrorist groups throughout the world. Whether he does or doesn't, however, he is still a clear and present danger to our allies and ourselves.
Note that al-Qaeda is missing from the Iraq section of the State Department's <a href="http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/10249.htm">Patterns of Global Terrorism</a> report. He funds Palestinian nationalist groups, (not Islamic extremists), and groups who attempt to go after Iraqi dissidents. He does not fund anti-American or Islamic extremist organizations. He still hopes that America's fickle policies about who is an enemy and support from countries with a financial interest in his regime will allow him to regain some power in the region. Attacking the US gains him nothing, but only assures the end of his regime.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

[Yerdaddy]

Don't let some "war consultant" on CNN tell you otherwise.
What's CNN? The administration has too much to lose by keeping intelligence secret at this point. They've taken serious political damage by not showing good evidence of the claims they have been making. If they had anything, there's no reason not to come forward with it. Instead they have noticably removed the al-Qaeda theories from the UN speech, from the White House "white paper" on Iraq, and from the proposed resolution submitted to Congress. They have also not provided any new information in closed briefings to the appropriate Congressional committees. CNN is irrelevant.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

[seagullbeagle]

Only if we want him to be. He's just going to sit out the rest of his life with his empty rheotoric unless we push him into a corner. Let him have his crappy ass country.
if i was cuban I would want to smack the shit out of you <P>
people deserve to life free If a person or regime dosent let the people live free,and that person or regime is a potential threat to us, do we not act? Should we let Saddam perfect his weapons of mass destruction?Should we let him continue to fund and nurture terrorism in any respect? Screw politics It's time to be Americans, like americans always were
Preemptive strike in defense <P>
It wasn't enough Saddam has chemical and nuclear weapons...
No, but it should have been <P>
<P>

<IMG SRC="http://www.seagullbeagle.50megs.com/images/headcrushersig.jpg">

low lit theatre,quiet crowd, and I'm on the screen projected I'm in the aisle yelling fire.-Far

This message was edited by seagullbeagle on 9-26-02 @ 9:38 PM

[PamR&Ffan]

I don't understand the timing...why not a year ago? The impression I'm getting is there is an imminent threat. Why not lay out our plans? Not our military plans, though I would like to know how they plan to deal with Saddam's using his weapons of mass distruction on our military when we attack. When we take over, what do we plan? He'll probably have torched the oil fields like he did last time, so no oil for a while. Is there a rebel faction in Iraq I don't know about? That's very possible, but I don't know about them. Usually, we go in to help some rebel group. Is that what we're planning? What are our plans for Iraq when we remove Saddam? Do we create more terrorists who hate us? Right now the one and only goal seems to be to kill Saddam. To me that's not enough to lose US lives for. <P>

[Hawiian shirt craig]

They have about as
much clearance to
classified material as the
Dominoes pizza guy.


absolutely, thats why they're
on CNN and not in a little
room somewhere. thanks
for the reality check. if you
guys think we know what
pres bush and dick cheney
know, ur nutso.

they have executive
privilage. and i dont want to
hear that family vendetta
shit ever again. i dont like
pres bush. but hes a
cowboy and thats what we
need. hes got a white hat,
and sadam has a black
one. so lets just put the
women and children to bed,
and go looking for dinner,
gentlemen.


-Hawiian Shirt Craig
THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T
HAVE NICE THINGS!!

<img src="http://home.ix.netcom.com/~camman/_uimages/HSC.gif">

San Diego Chargers 3-0

[shit4brains]

i wonder if there's a message board in iraq saying the same thing about us right now......
hmmmmmmmmm

i bet if we went to other parts of the world and watched their news we would look at our country in a different way.

the news we watch here is just as censored as any other part of the world.

i hate politics

<IMG SRC="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/rf32613/images/s4b2.jpg">

[Captain Rooster]

Yerdaddy, I appreciate your intelligent comments on this issue consistently. What I mean to express with my reference: the typical reponse, by many Americans, to CNN and the news channels to to listen without any thought on their own.

<CENTER><img src=http://ltrooster.homestead.com/files/wolviethinkingSIG.jpg></center>
<center></center>

[Cybersoldier]

Lets face facts if there were Aliens in Iraq, Bush would want to attack. Bush just wants to get Iraq and wants to kill that crazy dictator.

<IMG SRC="http://cybersoldier.iwarp.com/images/batfight2ab.jpg">

[bboxer]

There probably is a connection wether big or small, however it is probably small.

<IMG SRC = "C:My DocumentsMy Pictures yson.gif">

[TheMojoPin]

The Spooks in the CIA have eyes and ears all over the place in the Middle East.

That's flat out wrong. Up until 9/11, the CIA's Middle East espionage program was next to useless. There wasn't even an agent or ground contact that was native-born in more than half the countries in the region, including Afghanistan. Less than 2% of those working for the agency could speak Arabic fluently. It was literally impossible for someone working for the CIA to truly be accepted into the region, and thusly leanr knowledge of actual lasting value. It's all in the briefings and reports available in the always fascinating National Archives. You can't go from squat to dead-on in less than a year. It's dangerous to assume so.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[TheMojoPin]

if i was cuban I would want to smack the shit out of you

So would I. And every other American who supports going into Iraq when Cuba lives 90 miles away from us and we haven't felt the need to "liberate" them over the course of 40 years. Remember when they were part of the nameless, faceless evil Communist "monster"? Yeah, but that's not politically viable now, so who cares? It's hypocritical to bring up Cuba when supporting an invasion of Iraq for the sake of "liberating" the people so they can "live free".

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[FMJeff]

Should we let Saddam perfect his weapons of mass destruction?Should we let him continue to fund and nurture terrorism in any respect?



Look, here's the bottom line. Iraq is on the other side of the fucking world. They cannot attack this country as an invading nation. They don't have the navy, the airforce, the bases, the relationships with other countries, the money or the manpower. They have an inferior military and NO REASON TO ATTACK US. If we attack them, we give them a reason.

As for this, which is on the lips and in the minds of all brainwashed americans

Should we let Saddam perfect his weapons of mass destruction? Should we let him continue to fund and nurture terrorism in any respect?


So we take him out...that's supposed to end the pervasion of terrorism and hate? TO WHAT END? WHAT IS THIS SUPPOSED TO ACCOMPLISH HERE? We free Iraq from a dictator, leave the country in ruins while it rebuilds its infrastructure, which in makes it easier for terrorist groups who didn't have an affiliation with Saddam before to infiltrate Iraq and set up camp. Let's assume for a moment Saddam IS in cahoots with Al-Queda. You think bringing down Saddam will bring down Al-Queda? Terrorism, like the drug cartels, will not be stopped unless the need for them vanishes.

Fucking Bush...trying to take the easy way out by pushing little guys around...I mean, who the fuck is he dealing with here? Saddam is the king of the largest beachfront property this side of South Beach. We barely broke a fucking sweat in the Gulf War.

<center><img src="http://members.aol.com/sabanj666/ass.gif">
<br>
Stupid is as stupid does.</center>

[Captain Rooster]

Quote:
The Spooks in the CIA have eyes and ears all over the place in the Middle East.



That's flat out wrong.



hahsahahhahahaaa! Right;) Keep thinking that.

<CENTER><img src=http://ltrooster.homestead.com/files/wolviethinkingSIG.jpg></center>
<center></center>

[Captain Rooster]

We barely broke a fucking sweat in the Gulf War.



27,000 casualties - I'd call that a sweat.

Gulf War Syndrome

<CENTER><img src=http://ltrooster.homestead.com/files/wolviethinkingSIG.jpg></center>
<center></center>

[TheMojoPin]

hahsahahhahahaaa! Right Keep thinking that.

Why not? I worked for them for God's sake. These were some of the noisiest complaints from various offices since the Gulf War. This is the one thing my dad decried most of all in terms of what hindered his office in doing their job...like I said, take a trip to the Archives. It's all there in briefings, Senate and Congressional hearings. I'm telling you what I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears as a GS7.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[TheMojoPin]

Double-post. I'm a dink.

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 9-27-02 @ 5:26 PM

[Captain Rooster]

Mojo - I am sure you have extensive experience and classified clearance and are willing to talk about it on RF.net - but - I digress, don't you think having almost every special operations soldier in America working in concert with the CIA for the past year has turned up anything? Combine what we have in space with what we have on the ground and the humint becomes powerful quick.

When did you work with them? Just curious. I have met a few of the guys myself (here and there).



<CENTER><img src=http://ltrooster.homestead.com/files/wolviethinkingSIG.jpg></center>
<center></center>


This message was edited by LTRooster on 9-27-02 @ 8:02 PM

[TheMojoPin]

It's not like I'm revealing anything that's classified. This is what the CIA reps would reguarly complain about up on the Hill in terms of funding, or, as it happened more often, it was what they being yelled AT for on the Hill, for all of C-SPAN to see. Hell, most of the time it was because operatives DIDN'T even want the posts. The general consensus for years was, "if the food makes you shit, forget it." My father has been with them for almost 20 years, and a decade in the counter terrorism articles. He would complain about this constantly. He bring home in-house articles and exposes that did nothing but gripe about the lack of CIA and presence in the Middle East. I myself worked for them for about two years, from the summer of '98 until the summer of 2000, in a joint office between the bio/chem/nuke divisions. I mostly did work as an Agency rep with the government contractors we hired out to. The main problem is that since the collpase of the Soviets, the CIA really let their Middle East operations drop to almost nil. The main crux of their tactics would be to offer enough money for information, in the hopes that literally someone would walk off the streets into a consulate, embassy or safehouse and spill the beans. I have a pile of flyers and propoganda cards that we blanketed the region with after the '98 embassy bombings offering between 10 and 40 million dollars for information leading to the arrest of chief terrorists, including bin Laden. And sadly, that's about as "deep cover" as it went. Since then, yes, we've inserted a couple dozen special forces into Afghanistan, but that hardly covers Iraq. The deep mistrust against U.S. intelligence officers held by those that oppose Saddam for the perceived "abandonment" by us after the Gulf War doesn't help things either. Now that being said, the CIA IS working it's ass off to insert operatives in the region, recruit natives, and train operatives fluently in the local languages. I think the death of the CIA operative during the Taliban prison riot showed that they're finally willing to get their hands dirty.

My other question is this...why didn't Bush use this an election platform a year ago? Why now?

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[Se7en]

Oh Jeff, don't tell me you're one of those neo-hippies who's so obssessed with Bush / Republican hatred that you're against this impending war!

I loves me a good war. I can't wait for this one to start.

I'm not questioning whether nor not it's true...I'm talking about the intentional release of information to manipulate the public into supporting this war.

Gee, THAT's never happened before. Using propaganda to manipulate the public into supporting an issue.

Let's assume for a moment Saddam IS in cahoots with Al-Queda. You think bringing down Saddam will bring down Al-Queda? Terrorism, like the drug cartels, will not be stopped unless the need for them vanishes.

So, let me see if I get you right.....we should just ignore Al-Qaeda, because groups like them are an unconquerable problem? I mean, that's always the logic against the war on drugs, which you drew an analogy to. Just because there's a never-ending demand for illegal narcotics, does that mean we should stop fighting the cartels? I mean, sure, from one perspective, it IS a lose-lose situation. We'll never eliminate all of the cartels. We'll never eliminate all of the terrorist groups.

The question then is, do we have a right to go after and attempt to stop those groups which represent a clear (and present) danger to us? My philosophy is that we do.

Fucking Bush...trying to take the easy way out by pushing little guys around...

If you think about it....every war or military conflict we've been in since WW2 was essentially against "little guys". The difference being Vietnam, where we half-assed it, and thus the little guys won.

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/RFnetSe7en4.bmp" width="300" height="100">

WWFallon - livin' la vida lucha.

"Being a bastard WORKS."
--Spider Jerusalem

[TheMojoPin]

So, let me see if I get you right.....we should just ignore Al-Qaeda,

That's not what he said. He was saying that we need to try and go after groups like Al Queda, not petty, evil little dictators like Saddam. Saddam has spent his life in power slaughtering Islamic and Muslim fundamentalists because they pose a threat to him and what to see him dead as much as we do, if not more. Why is he suddenly going to harbor them?

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[Yerdaddy]

Rooster, thanks, and I agree

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

[furie]

I'm telling you what I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears as a GS7.


what kind of clearance could you have had as a GS7?

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/thansurfadam.jpg" width=300 height=100>
<marquee behavior="alternate"><a href="aim:goim?screenname=furie1335&message=You_are_Number_6">IM:Furie1335
</a></marquee>

<marquee>Where in the nursery rhyme does it say Humpty Dumpty was an egg?
</marquee>

[TheMojoPin]

what kind of clearance could you have had as a GS7?

In layman's terms, anything designated as "secret", but not "top secret".

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[seagullbeagle]

It's hypocritical to bring up Cuba when supporting an invasion of Iraq for the sake of "liberating" the people so they can "live free".


it's only hypocritical if you ASSume that I agree with our governments decision to not take action on Castro
and i'm only saying that we shouldnt make the same mistake twice

NO REASON TO ATTACK US. If we attack them, we give them a reason.

I swear i remember us attacking them sometime in the early ninties
Iraq is on the other side of the fucking world. They cannot attack this country as an invading nation. They don't have the navy, the airforce, the bases, the relationships with other countries, the money or the manpower.

he dosen't need those things now
9/11 has proved our vulnerabilities
we fare better against an army than a single person
As for this, which is on the lips and in the minds of all brainwashed americans

argument ad hominem
calling people brainwashed dosent make your argument any more true

<IMG SRC="http://www.seagullbeagle.50megs.com/images/headcrushersig.jpg">

low lit theatre,quiet crowd, and I'm on the screen projected I'm in the aisle yelling fire.-Far

This message was edited by seagullbeagle on 9-28-02 @ 12:05 AM

[TheMojoPin]

9/11 has proved our vulnerabilities
we fare better against an army than a single person

Proved our vulnerabilities to terrorists. Saddamn Hussein, for all his evils and faults, is not a terrorist. His only acts of aggression outside of Iraq have been in the "standard" warfare model (vs. Iran, invading Kuwait). Why is he suddenly the prime suspect to start shoving nukes up his people's asses and dropping them undercover in the States?

And while I know you weren't trying to say this in the latter half, it almost sounds like that we NEED a war just to balance the 9/11 bodycount...

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[seagullbeagle]

His only acts of aggression outside of Iraq have been in the "standard" warfare model (vs. Iran, invading Kuwait).

so it's silly to believe that he would ever take an action other than ones he's taken in the past?
And while I know you weren't trying to say this

good, cause i wasnt
I dont need a war to balance anything
I only need a war if it can save more people than inaction would hurt

<IMG SRC="http://www.seagullbeagle.50megs.com/images/headcrushersig.jpg">

low lit theatre,quiet crowd, and I'm on the screen projected I'm in the aisle yelling fire.-Far

This message was edited by seagullbeagle on 9-28-02 @ 12:39 AM

[Recyclerz]

Whilst listening to Imus this morning (God I am OLD) the 60 Minutes lady was vamping Sunday's show wherein Israel's army is supposed to be releasing information captured from Arafat's former HQ that purports to show active support from Iraq for the Palestinian nationalist/terrorist (depending on which side you're on) organizations. I'll be watching cuz I think if there is substantive evidence to back up the charges Bush might get enough support to pull the trigger. If it is rehashed BS I think Bush (and Sharon) slip further into deek-ville. <P> <P>

If you can't laugh at the misfortunes of others, what can you laugh at?

[furie]

i'm not a layman

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/thansurfadam.jpg" width=300 height=100>
<marquee behavior="alternate"><a href="aim:goim?screenname=furie1335&message=You_are_Number_6">IM:Furie1335
</a></marquee>

<marquee>Where in the nursery rhyme does it say Humpty Dumpty was an egg?
</marquee>

[Captain Stubing]

7 hit most of the high points. I'll add, having done SIGINT for some years, that lots of intelligence collection DOES occur (in the Middle East and elsewhere) but the analysis and integration is generally lacking....this fact is well-known and is often brought up in the context of knowing capabilities but not intentions. This logically leads to the next problem....in a post 9/11 world do you (i.e. us, the US)make errors of commission or omission? If the capabilities are there and a history of 'bad' actions are there do you assume 1) bad actions will continue, only on a broader scale or 2) despite increased capabilities bad actions won't occur or will remain limited in scope. It's an interesting arguement over which reasonable people can (and do) disagree. I fall into camp 1), if for no other reason than errors of omission lead to 9/11. As for the timing/politics involved, let's agree that this administration is indeed political...as they all are, have been and will be. It's the same as it ever was.... <P>

Fezaesthesia - Prognosis poor...

[TheMojoPin]

i'm not a layman

Still applies. If it was marked "top secret", t'was not for my eyes. Anything less than that, up to and including "secret", I had access to...technically.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[TheMojoPin]

so it's silly to believe that he would ever take an action other than ones he's taken in the past

Not at all, but if he were nuts enough to do such a thing, odds are it would be against Israel, if anyone. He can't possibly strike at us. And again, why would this man sacrifice everything he's so selfishly built up as supreme leader of his nation? He's not an extremist...look at bin Laden...the man is a billionaire, and he's so obsessed with our destruction, he chose to forgo his wealth and live in caves. Saddam sits in his massive palaces, drives his fleet of luxury automobiles, wears his tailored suits...and pretty much makes himself an open target. Hardly the activities of a man on the verge of unleashing a horrible terrorist attack against America, attacks that would instantly lead to him losing all his wealth and power, and most likely, his life.

He writes romance novels, for God's sake.

He's evil, he's scum, but he is not a terrorist. He's not an extremist. If Bush wants to go to war, fine, say it for the reasons that make sense...quit going against all logic and common reason with all this smoke and mirrors horseshit. I don't doubt for a second that Saddamn hasn't tried to develop weapons of mass destruction. He would love to gas and nuke the rebels and Muslim extremists living in his country that are trying to take him down. He'd love to be able to stand toe-to-toe with Iran again. He'd love to have something to point and waggle at Israel. He'd also love to have something to say, "ah-HAH. You invade me...I use THESE." THIS is what needs to be stopped, hence why we take advantage of the offer for inspectors, and we ENFORCE it. But to say that he's planning to use these weapons against US, on American soil, is absurd. To be frank, I call bullshit, and it's pissing me off.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[Captain Rooster]

Mojo, my post was not in an effort to put you down. Know that.

<CENTER><img src=http://ltrooster.homestead.com/files/wolviethinkingSIG.jpg></center>
<center></center>

[TheMojoPin]

Mojo, my post was not in an effort to put you down. Know that.

No worries, I knew it all along. I never take stuff in threads like this personally...if I get riled up, it's just because I love debate...just the fact we CAN disagree in a forum like this, hell, God bless America indeed...

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[Yerdaddy]

<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/814085.asp">`A War Waiting for a Pretext'</a>I'm posting this article, (interview really), not because it's chock full of evidence supporting my position on the war issue, but because I think this offers the type of perspective that should be heard every time a war is considered - that of someone who's fought wars. I'd like to point out the difference in attitudes between combat veterans, (like this guy and like Rooster), and those who haven't been to war. The vets are more reasoned and thoughtful. Knowing the realities of war, they tend to ask the hard questions about a situation that may call for war, because they are viscerally aware that men and momen will suffer for the decisions that are made. Meanwhile the general public lets itself form it's opinions based more on it's passions and fears - some cry for bombs to fly at the drop of the hat and some presume that every war is an unjust war.

I'm not sure, but I think Rooster, like most Gulf War veterans, is in favor of invasion. But I know he's thought carefully about it, and is considering all possible solutions. I have other Gulf War veteran friends who are actively opposed to the war. The one thing that these guys have in common is that they are not the screamers in the crowd. They aren't screaming "BUSH JUST WANTS THE OIL! HE'S FINISHING HIS DADDY'S WAR! MAKE LOVE NOT WAR! or NUKE ALL THE ARABS! INTERNMENT CAMPS! MASS DEPORTATION! IF YOU'RE NOT WITH US YOU'RE AGAINST US! TAKE HIM DOWN!" (although that last one sounds familiar). My point is that these guys should be front and center in the debate, and the screamers should shut up and listen. Then maybe we can get to a solution to the problem.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

[Se7en]

I wrote a good, long post on this topic, but my computer decided to eat it before I could post. So here's a second try.

Not at all, but if he were nuts enough to do such a thing, odds are it would be against Israel, if anyone.

The dark side of me would like for Saddam to try and start something against Israel. Because they wouldn't pussy around and debate whether to take action. They'd all be like, "You want some of this, biatch?" And the next thing you know, Baghdad is a crater. It'd be sweet.

He can't possibly strike at us.

WHOA, let's take 19 steps back. You've just made an INCREDIBLY dangerous assumption there. Most of us, up until a year ago, would have never thought some wackjob in the desert could orchestrate a plan which would entail planes crashing into buildings and killing thousands. "Osama who? He can't possibly hurt us, he's just some guy over in the Middle East! That's the other side of the world!" Well, he did. And "other side of the world" as an excuse for not taking action is a shaky argument to make.

And again, why would this man sacrifice everything he's so selfishly built up as supreme leader of his nation?

This is the same guy who put a hit out on his son, and then was thoroughly pissed when it wasn't done properly. He's not entirely sane. If he saw a legitimate opening to take a good hit on us, even through indirect means, don't automatically assume that he won't take it just cause he wouldn't think that politically it'd be the best course of action.

He's not an extremist...

Really? Why don't you discuss with the Kurds about that one. If you can find any left alive.

look at bin Laden...the man is a billionaire, and he's so obsessed with our destruction, he chose to forgo his wealth and live in caves.

While I would agree with you that Osama is far more fanatical than Hussein, do not, for a moment, think Saddam is this great rational thinker.

Saddam sits in his massive palaces, drives his fleet of luxury automobiles, wears his tailored suits...and pretty much makes himself an open target.

Conveniently forgetting the fact that he has a bunch of lookalikes to use as decoys / targets against assassination attempts.

Hardly the activities of a man on the verge of unleashing a horrible terrorist attack against America, attacks that would instantly lead to him losing all his wealth and power, and most likely, his life.

The attack doesn't necessarily need to be direct.

He writes romance novels, for God's sake.

Hitler may have been great with puppies, I don't know. It wouldn't exactly change my opinion of the man. What's your point?

If Bush wants to go to war, fine, say it for the reasons that make sense...quit going against all logic and common reason with all this smoke and mirrors horseshit.

Show me one presidential administration that hasn't used smoke & mirrors or propaganda to sway public opinion / support their way on some issue. If you can find it, I'd sure like to know. EVERYONE DOES IT. Clinton did it. Bush before him, Reagan, etc. And the Bush administration HAS stated that they want to go to war, AND they've listed the reasons. It's just that the dicks in the United Nation (and those in the nation such as you) want even MORE justification for an invasion. Thus, you get the propaganda. It's all to placate you.

I don't doubt for a second that Saddamn hasn't tried to develop weapons of mass destruction. He would love to gas and nuke the rebels and Muslim extremists living in his country that are trying to take him down. He'd love to be able to stand toe-to-toe with Iran again. He'd love to have something to point and waggle at Israel. He'd also love to have something to say, "ah-HAH. You invade me...I use THESE." THIS is what needs to be stopped, hence why we take advantage of the offer for inspectors, and we ENFORCE it.

Yes, because the United Nations is just SO w

[Mxyzptlk]

The real reason Bush is trying to invade Iraq (Quote from Bush): <P>

"After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."

Al Queda sleeper cell was also found in Buffalo. Let's bomb it.

Saudia Arabia has more ties to Al Queda than Iraq. Hell, let's just get it over with and invade the entire middle east. This will get us big points on the Risk game board, but its borders may be a little difficult to defend.





This message was edited by Mxyzptlk on 9-29-02 @ 9:28 PM

[Yerdaddy]

Se7en makes a good point, (although I don't think he knows what it is): that the decisions over what to do about Iraq is being driven largely by domestic partisan politics. Any presidential adminstration makes important foreign policy decisions based on the knowledge that the majority of Americans will not look critically at the information being presented, (obviously), but will accept the position of the party they identify with as fact, while attributing all dissenting opinions to common stereotypes about the other major party - war-mongers for Republicans and pussies for Democrats. Because political leaders can count on this ideological and partisan bickering to occupy the bulk of the public debate, it allows them to manipulate international situations to gain themselves domestic political advantages. In the case of Clinton it enabled him to ignore the genocide in Rwanda, even when it could have been prevented without even using American soldiers, and thereby avoid Republicans in Congress from accusing him of "nation-building" or "spreading the military too thin." For his actions regarding Rwanda, he was a pussy. In Bush's case, the partisan bickering in the public allows him to make eggagerated claims about an enemy regime and chastise and marginalize the international institutions that have been established to keep the peace in the world, in order to pretend that war is the only course of action possible and that he is defending the security of Americans. In this case Bush is a war-monger.

But if these men are pussies and war-mongers, it is the American public, though their reliance on petty ideological and partisan generalizations rather than critical thinking and democratic participation that allows them to be so. Thanks Se7en.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

[furie]

"After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."


I can't believe he said that... wow.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/thansurfadam.jpg" width=300 height=100>
<marquee behavior="alternate"><a href="aim:goim?screenname=furie1335&message=You_are_Number_6">IM:Furie1335
</a></marquee>

<marquee>Where in the nursery rhyme does it say Humpty Dumpty was an egg?
</marquee>

[TheMojoPin]

Which is frustrating, because what would Clinton or Gore or any other Democrat (assuming that they'd be more "hawkish" like the Republicans, and actually have the stones to invade Iraq) do in the same situation? THE SAME FUCKING THING.

Which is exactly what I said to the tee when Moe brought up the same issue a couple weeks back. I have little more love for Democrats than I do for Republicans. Both end up dicking me over or simply maintaining the status quo, so why should one get my support? Since the Dems are who "liberals" supposedly flock to, I will grant you, yes, in my book they get an "F+" to the Republicans' "F".

But ultimately, what are we supposed to do here? You're viewpoint is literally the exact opposite of mine in almost every regard. And also, neither of us truly has concrete evidence to back up our points 100%. Based on Iraq's politcal actions and statements made by Saddam Hussein, the man is about as evil as they come, but I cannot believe for an instant he is a threat to American soil (At least in 9/11 terms). He's not that stupid, and it defies the very essence of his iron-clad little dictatorship for the past two decades. And honestly, nothing is going to change that short of a weapons inspector saying, "My God, there's a long range nuclear missile down here!" I believe that we should push to have inspectors move in again, escorted by OUR troops, and do the job right. We simply don't have the patience to properly deal with Iraq in a full scale millitary fashion, and it'll end up being a big post-conflict snafu where we pull out too soon, and it bites us in the ass in 10, 20 years, like Afghanistan. I'd have no problem in supporting our government in millitary action if I felt they could pull it off or the public would support it, but we both know they won't. If it drags on for more than five years, people will start crying "Vietnam", the next few administrations will get queasy and pull out prematurely. That's my fear, that's why I don't want us going in over some bogus, trumped up, anti-Iraq sentiment just because they happen to be "in the neighborhood". I'm as terrified of nuclear strike as the next person, because odds are it'll be in my backyard, but I also have no desire to see our country get entangled in a situation it won't see through to the proper conclusion, which leads to attention NOT being paid to the people who could pull off another 9/11-like attack.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 9-29-02 @ 11:09 PM

[Captain Rooster]

I believe that we should push to have inspectors move in again, escorted by OUR troops, and do the job right.


Mojo, thank you, I completely agree with that ideal. That problem is I don't think Iraq will ever let that happen. If our troops "escort" inspectors into their country, they are going to ambush our guys and we will have another Somalia incident on our hands. They would love to draw us in and kill a platoon of our infantrymen, my buddies.

The escorts should be Predator spy planes and C130 gunships. We'll see.

Can any possible good come out of this situation? If we don't act we will be eventually attacked. If we do attack we have more terrorists citing our aggression as a reason to kill our civilians. What we need to do is eliminate their biggest punch and that is the WMD. I don't sleep well at night know they are out there - do you?

<CENTER><img src=http://ltrooster.homestead.com/files/WolvieNinjasSIG.jpg></center>
<center></center>

[Yerdaddy]

Armed inspectors is a bad idea, partly for the reason Rooster said. But the main reason is that inspectors aren't going to be shot for trying to get into an inspection site. Instead of weapons, they had real-time cameras and an open phone line on them at all times that went directly to either CENTCOM or the Pentagon, I forget which. They would show up at a site and surround the place while the Iraqis called the authorities and get permission to let them in. The Iraqi government would then negotiate or stall or piss and moan, knowing that it was either let them in or hope the cruise missiles hit the wrong building. The Iraqis gave in every time until the last few months, when the inspectors lost the backing of the Clinton administration. So the only time inspectors were at risk was when they accidentally drove through a roadblock in the middle of the night and scared the shit out of the soldier they almost ran over. It was a tense situation for awhile, but that's the biggest risk to the inspectors - being mistakenly percieved as a threat and shot by accident. So I haven't heard of any inspectors that are in favor of the armed inspectors. It's just not the way the inspection operate. The way Scott Ritter described it to me is inspections were like negotiations at an open-air market - there was always haggling with some asshole, but he always caved in eventually. I'm telling you guys, read Ritter's book "Endgame" - it's kind of Tom Clancy-ish but real stuff. Inspectors are are guys with big brains and big balls.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

[TheMojoPin]

I don't sleep well at night know they are out there - do you?

Yes and no. Don't get me wrong, Iraq should NOT have WMD, and we should stop them, I just differ as to HOW we should stop them. But my "fear" is in terms of how they could be used. I'm not afraid of WMD from Iraq actually killing ME, it's more them being used on our troops during an invasion. And Iraq is far too close to THE most volatile nuclear powers in the world, Pakistan and India. I'm thinking in terms of ye olde domino effect...a nuclear mishap in Iraq somehow instigates Pakistan & India...which gets China involved...which gets Russia on the offensive...and so on and so forth...a very, VERY worst case scenario, but that's what worries me. The much, MUCH bigger picture.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[Yerdaddy]

Scariest part for me is Iraq throws a scud at Israel and we end up fighting side-by-side with Israeli troops against an Arab country. How's that gonna look? Every fucking Islamic extremist in the world is going to hit the streets and start toppling regimes, and we have Ariel Sharon and George "they misunderestimated me" Bush with their fingers on their own buttons. All of a sudden all the fucking whack-jobs screaming about killing all the Arabs get their wish. That's a fun world to live in then.

As for terrorism, I live less than two miles from the white house and I sleep fine.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

[JerryTaker]

that's the biggest risk to the inspectors - being mistakenly percieved as a threat and shot by accident.

So next you'll tell me Daniel Pearl knocked over a traffic cone or something, then he was accidentally held in a prison camp and had his head cut off, oops... or was that a "Media manipulation?"

<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/Angelsig2.gif">

<marquee width=300>I look around my room is filled with candles; Each one a story but they end the same. I'll hide away in here the law will never find me; The walls will tell the story of my pain</marquee>

[TheMojoPin]

So next you'll tell me Daniel Pearl knocked over a traffic cone or something

Daniel Pearl was a Wall Street Journal reporter kidnapped by Muslim exremists in Pakistan. Yerdaddy was talking about UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. Apples and cucumbers.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[JerryTaker]

Daniel Pearl was a Wall Street Journal reporter kidnapped by Muslim exremists in Pakistan. Yerdaddy was talking about UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. Apples and cucumbers.

give it a month...

<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/Angelsig2.gif">

<marquee width=300>I look around my room is filled with candles; Each one a story but they end the same. I'll hide away in here the law will never find me; The walls will tell the story of my pain</marquee>

[TheMojoPin]

give it a month...

Can't someone give me a pony instead?

The whole Daniel Pearl incident really depressed me. I remember asking my dad a few days after it was first reported whether or not he thought the U.S. would be able to get him back, and he just looked up and said, "oh, he's already dead." And then sure enough, a couple days later that was the news. Stupid, stupid and pointless.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[JerryTaker]

The whole Daniel Pearl incident really depressed me.

Me, too. It remined me of when I was a kid in the 80's and seeing stuff like that on the news every couple of months, back then Iran was the country we paid attention to in "Wheel of Middle Eastern America haters," and planes, boats, etc, were getting Hijacked all the time, it seemed....
But for some reason, Reagan kept saying "Russia, Russia, the damn Commies, no don't look at the middle east, I want to sell them more guns... er I mean Russia! Get the Commies"
People seemed to forget about stuff like that in the past ten years, I guess it's been too long...
Somehow I'm sure all that was all <I>Carter's</I> fault, I can't wait to hear that one...

EDIT: By the way, any Weapons inspectors that get too close to what Saddam <I>Really</I> has down there will dissapear, I beleive that completely....

<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/Angelsig2.gif">

<marquee width=300>I look around my room is filled with candles; Each one a story but they end the same. I'll hide away in here the law will never find me; The walls will tell the story of my pain</marquee>

This message was edited by JerryTaker on 9-30-02 @ 4:37 PM

[TheMojoPin]

EDIT: By the way, any Weapons inspectors that get too close to what Saddam Really has down there will dissapear, I beleive that completely....

I'd think so as well, but would he really do something that stupid? I mean, at this point he has a ton of Western countries opposing the invasion of his country. If a group of UN inspectors suddenly vanishes and isn't heard from again, who the hell would stand against our idea of invading him? I think we'd have to push other countries out of the way to get in first...

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[Captain Rooster]

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... all of our leaders are evil and ... yadda, yadda, yadda.

<CENTER><img src=http://ltrooster.homestead.com/files/WolvieNinjasSIG.jpg></center>
<center></center>

[furie]

Ok, alot of good points have been brought up here. But here's what it comes down to; If the UN Inspectors are not given un-fettered(?) access, or it is found that they are close to a nuke(and i mean close) who here would support a strike on Iraq?

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/thansurfadam.jpg" width=300 height=100>
<marquee behavior="alternate"><a href="aim:goim?screenname=furie1335&message=You_are_Number_6">IM:Furie1335
</a></marquee>

<marquee>Where in the nursery rhyme does it say Humpty Dumpty was an egg?
</marquee>

[TheMojoPin]

If the UN Inspectors are not given un-fettered(?) access, or it is found that they are close to a nuke(and i mean close) who here would support a strike on Iraq?

If it's the former, then yes, I would. If it's the latter, why would we invade if they're only "close", even just "REALLY close"? Wouldn't the inspectors then do their job and dismantle the ALMOST-working nuke?

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[Se7en]

Se7en makes a good point, (although I don't think he knows what it is):

Thanks Se7en.

Uh, you're welcome.

And thanks for the rather back-handed compliment.

To Mojo:

But ultimately, what are we supposed to do here? You're viewpoint is literally the exact opposite of mine in almost every regard.

I'd say we should "agree to disagree", but that's just so jive-ass, don't you think?

I have little more love for Democrats than I do for Republicans. Both end up dicking me over or simply maintaining the status quo, so why should one get my support? Since the Dems are who "liberals" supposedly flock to, I will grant you, yes, in my book they get an "F+" to the Republicans' "F".

Thank you for being honest. At least you admitt this.

I get the distinct feeling that people like Jeff & Pootertoot are so hard on this foreign policy issue explicitly because it's BUSH (in the specific sense, and a Republican in the general) pushing it. I don't think I'll ever get an acknowledgement of that.

Both political parties have begun to sicken me over the years, which is why I've slowly begun to become more of a moderate / independent. But on quite a few issues (the Middle East in particular) I'm terribly conservative. So I'm more apt to give the Republicans a C-, and the Dems an F+.

A screwy grading scale, I know, but what can I say? Liberals just annoy me more. At least the Republicans are up front about being nasty bastards.

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/RFnetSe7en4.bmp" width="300" height="100">

WWFallon - livin' la vida lucha.

"Being a bastard WORKS."
--Spider Jerusalem

[Yerdaddy]

Ok, alot of good points have been brought up here. But here's what it comes down to: If the UN Inspectors are not given un-fettered(?) access, or it is found that they are close to a nuke(and i mean close) who here would support a strike on Iraq?
This is a good question. I have the same answer as mojo. Refer to my previous post on the inspections being like haggling at an open-air market. There will be fettering. Fettering is the nature of dealing with Saddam's regime. The inspectors show up at a site, the Iraqis fetter, everyone gets on the phone, UNSCOM confirms that cruise missiles are itching to go. The Iraqis say "come on in."

As for being near a nuke: nukes are the easiest WMD to destroy. They require large facilities and would be the first to be destroyed by inspectors.

If Saddam had used chemical weapons against Iranians or Kurds without the tacid support from Europe and the US, then I would consider him more of an irrational actor and I would be more likely to support a military solution. If nuclear weapons were easier to build, I would be more likely to support a military solution. If Saddam was a Muslim extremist and had been involved in 9-11, I would support a military solution.

I'm not opposed to war in general. But I know that there are non-military solutions to problems of today. I don't think that Bush and most Americans know this though.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

[furie]

why would we invade if they're only "close", even just "REALLY close"? Wouldn't the inspectors then do their job and dismantle the ALMOST-working nuke?


It would be more of a reason for a regime change. He's had 11 years to disarm. If it's proven that he hasn't(and it has not been proven as of yet), that he used that time to accelerate his program; then it's obvious that there's no dealing with him. He'd just rebuild the program if it were dismantled.

Assuming the nukes are there.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/thansurfadam.jpg" width=300 height=100>
<marquee behavior="alternate"><a href="aim:goim?screenname=furie1335&message=You_are_Number_6">IM:Furie1335
</a></marquee>

<marquee>Where in the nursery rhyme does it say Humpty Dumpty was an egg?
</marquee>


This message was edited by furie on 10-1-02 @ 2:49 PM

[TheMojoPin]

It would be more of a reason for a regime change. He's had 11 years to disarm.

The most frustrating part of this is we could be avoiding this mess if we just took Iraq on their offer back before the Gulf War. Literally months before the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq offered full US, not UN, dismantling and control of any current WMD programs...as long as we halted Israel's nuclear development as well. But of course, because of our all or nothing support for Israel we refused. Nevermind in the 70's we signed a treaty with the other nuclear powers stating that all current nuked-up countries would not support any country at that point that did have nuclear capabilities. Less than 10 years later, however, we gave Israel a hand. Stupid hindsight. Oh well.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP