The Terioist at 1600 Penn. Ave

[Mirorgate 0]

Ever get that feeling that neither side will really convince/portray their side of beliefs with any bearing on what really happened.. and everyone stands around frothing at the mouth with a sense of (self)righteous indignation at the other side.

face it... its a CF of immense proportions whether intel was bad, right/wrong, dictator shoulda/coulda been removed whatever. done is done.... now we have to actually work together to fix it.. and i'm not sure that is possible at this juncture.

[Heracles 417]

Tell me, how many Islamic Fundamentalists were bombing and beheading and otherwise killing and executing Iraqi men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad, Samarra, Basra and other Iraqi cities prior to March 19, 2003? Have a number? I give you one: 0.

The only reason the Islamic Fundies can play their ####### in Iraq today is because we illegally invaded the place and failed to secure it once the government was toppled. All these deaths are due to the illegal action that Bush pursued. That, in my book, is a major ** up. Again, I wish all that had taken place in your backyard. Then you might be able to see how wrong that that illegal invasion was and is on all levels.

One would think that history has shown that since this particular group has lost power they are now using any means necessary to secure it. Especially if it means killing Iraqis with opposing views..

What message do you think we would give the islamic extremists if we simply cut and ran???

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The other issue is BEFORE 9/11, the last foreign sponsored terrorist attack on US soil took place in 1993. So presumably, before 1993 and between 1993 and 2000 the security services were doing 'something right' or otherwise there was no threat. As the latter is completely ridiculous - what do you think is more likely.

In any case, its a bit early to claim victory considering (again) that there was an 8 year period (and countless years before) without any acts of islamic terrorism being carried out on the US mainland.

The fact is the 9/11 attacks were planned during that period and not immediately after George W Bush became president..

Like with most regime changes, it will take time.

Which would make your initial pronouncement somewhat premature, no? 5 years with no attack (unless of course, you count all the ones in Europe) vs. 8 years with no attack, and X years with no attack before 1993.

By the way, if all of these anti-war nations are so humble and caring, why don't they offer their help in Iraq.. There is a lot they can do which does not involve using their military. Where is China, Russia and France??

You're right - Russia, China and France haven't 'helped'. Neither have they been subjected to attacks by Islamic extremists - unless of course you count Chechnya, which says as much about the Russian government as it does about the Chechen rebels.

More to the point, what exactly did Britain get out of "helping". We certainly didn't get any reconstruction contracts - but 52 people on their way to work in London on 7/7 certainly got more than their morning cup of coffee.

What message do you think we would give the islamic extremists if we simply cut and ran???

Has that been suggested?

You break it, you bought it. That's how it works.

[Heracles 417]

The war (Bush started) has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people. That's an inalienable fact. Who killed them is beside the point - very many people have died as a result of his foreign policies.

So your saying, for example, if you knew your neighbour was beating his children to death. You would simply turn a blind eye if it meant your family could be killed, if you intervened.

Has that been suggested?

Yes. The fact is we are there now and have a duty to help the other Iraqi people. People calling Bush a d###head 24/7 does not achieve anything..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The war (Bush started) has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people. That's an inalienable fact. Who killed them is beside the point - very many people have died as a result of his foreign policies.

So your saying, for example, if you knew your neighbour was beating his children to death. You would simply turn a blind eye if it meant your family could be killed, if you intervened.

Its not about what "I" would do - you're trying the ideological guilt trip again - and in doing so, trying to make it something that it never was. It was not sold on the basis that Saddam murders and tortures his people, it was sold on the basis that he posed a direct threat to the US, via very clear analogies to 9/11 and comparisons to Bin Laden.

There are terrible dictators the world over that's not in question - but noone did anything about Pol Pot or Idi Amin. Should they? Certainly - but are you about to suggest that the reason these people (and people like them today) aren't being deposed is because wars are not fought solely for humanitarian reasons.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Tell me, how many Islamic Fundamentalists were bombing and beheading and otherwise killing and executing Iraqi men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad, Samarra, Basra and other Iraqi cities prior to March 19, 2003? Have a number? I give you one: 0.

The only reason the Islamic Fundies can play their ####### in Iraq today is because we illegally invaded the place and failed to secure it once the government was toppled. All these deaths are due to the illegal action that Bush pursued. That, in my book, is a major ** up. Again, I wish all that had taken place in your backyard. Then you might be able to see how wrong that that illegal invasion was and is on all levels.

One would think that history has shown that since this particular group has lost power they are now using any means necessary to secure it. Especially if it means killing Iraqis with opposing views...

What message do you think we would give the islamic extremists if we simply cut and ran???

Can you quit babbeling and stay on topic for once?

The Iraqi casualties of this war go to the account of one George W Bush. Their blood is on his hands. It's that simple. The arrogant attitude of "taking the fight to them" which really means sacrificing civilians in another country - even if that country had nothing to do with "them" - is what fuels the Islamic Fundis and their terrorist networks. It tells the world that no life is as valuable as that of an American. Arrogance at it's finest. That is what makes matters worse.

All this "liberating the people that will greet us with flowers" and "stuff happens" is just a sorry testament of the incompetence of the folks at 1600 Penn Ave. They either are completely clueless or bank on the hope that America and the rest of the world is - in which case the former would hold true as well.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes. The fact is we are there now and have a duty to help the other Iraqi people. People calling Bush a d###head 24/7 does not achieve anything..

Because the reconstruction of Iraq is a separate issue now. There can be no pull-out until some sort of lasting stability is ensured - which will likely take years, if not decades. Rumsfeld told everyone we'd be in and out of there. Either he was dressing up the truth, or he doesn't have a clue. Incompetant or Liar - take your pick.

The issue now is in preventing a similar "adventure" somewhere else.

And this is in the context of the suggestions that Iraq has only exacerbated Islamic fundamentalism and anti-US resentment, something that a lot of people already suspected.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Tell me, how many Islamic Fundamentalists were bombing and beheading and otherwise killing and executing Iraqi men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad, Samarra, Basra and other Iraqi cities prior to March 19, 2003? Have a number? I give you one: 0.

That's because Sadam was doing it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Tell me, how many Islamic Fundamentalists were bombing and beheading and otherwise killing and executing Iraqi men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad, Samarra, Basra and other Iraqi cities prior to March 19, 2003? Have a number? I give you one: 0.

That's because Sadam was doing it.

Is Saddam an Islamic Fundamentalist?

[Heracles 417]

That's because Sadam was doing it.

Is Saddam an Islamic Fundamentalist?

6 of 1, half a dozen of another..

[ieldanth 0]

Tell me, how many Islamic Fundamentalists were bombing and beheading and otherwise killing and executing Iraqi men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad, Samarra, Basra and other Iraqi cities prior to March 19, 2003? Have a number? I give you one: 0.

That's because Sadam was doing it.

Is Saddam an Islamic Fundamentalist?

Probably not, but he was aiding Hamas with money that should have been used to feed his own people. Remember the thousands of dollars he offered to families that sent their children off as human bombs into Israel? There you go, another angle to play with.

Back to the original topic, I am reading some who state this is an illegal war. That indicates a law was broken. Which one? I am honestly curious about this. If the war is indeed illegal then we have to also implicate all but two or three members of Congress. Same intel, same conclusion, same results. All who voted to authorize military action against Iraq share in the culpability and if so, we should be seating a nearly completely new Congress soon while all the ones who voted to authorize rest in prison.

[garya505 2]

If we are less safe since 9/11 2001 and invading Iraq has made us less safe then why hasn't there been a successful attack on American soil since then?

NEWS FLASH it was 8 years between the last 2 attacks in the continential United States (1993 - 2001). Of course this was mentioned the LAST time you posed a similar question.

#######?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Back to the original topic, I am reading some who state this is an illegal war. That indicates a law was broken. Which one?

There is no legal basis in international law for this act of aggression. Only the UN Security council can authorize this type of military intervention and it clearly didn't. The only exception here would be a member nation's right to immediate self-defense where the Security Council did not have an opportunity to act yet. That wasn't the case either. People have to get it through their heads, that neither the POTUS nor the US Congress rules the world.

If the war is indeed illegal then we have to also implicate all but two or three members of Congress. Same intel, same conclusion, same results. All who voted to authorize military action against Iraq share in the culpability and if so, we should be seating a nearly completely new Congress soon while all the ones who voted to authorize rest in prison.

Nonsense. Congress authorized the President to use force as a last resort. Bush stopped all other efforts to resolve Iraq's WMD matter - in fact, he chased the UN inspectors out of Iraq before they could finish their job - and gave the marching orders. That is not what was to happen. Not from what I've read in the resolution that Congress adopted and the debate that lead to it's adoption.

[jjjimmy 0]

im amazed when people use the fact that there havent been any attacks on the us in 5 yrs.when in fact erekose is right to say that when the trade centers were attacked before it took 8 yrs before they did it again,and we never gave up any freedoms we didnt allow gov. to tap our phones,we didnt take us citizens and " terrorist" to secret prisons,we didnt torture,we didnt even change article 3 what we did do is find the people responsible put them on trial,give them due process and then locked them up!(dont you just love the rule of law)

[Heracles 417]

im amazed when people use the fact that there havent been any attacks on the us in 5 yrs.when in fact erekose is right to say that when the trade centers were attacked before it took 8 yrs before they did it again,and we never gave up any freedoms we didnt allow gov. to tap our phones,we didnt take us citizens and " terrorist" to secret prisons,we didnt torture,we didnt even change article 3 what we did do is find the people responsible put them on trial,give them due process and then locked them up!(dont you just love the rule of law)

Are you seriously comparing the years between the first attack to now? It would be like comparing 1937 to 1944 and saying wasn't the threat level the same on both of those years..