Politics from the Fahrenheit thread

[stevetseitz]

>>Moore made a film for the have-nots, of which there are many.<<

There are far fewer "have-nots' thanks to the free-enterprise system and Democratic capitalism than there would be under any other economic system. Anyone with a work ethic and the desire can achieve his or her goals in this country.

>>The suppression and manipulation of information by the powers that be is undemocratic, unjust and actually illegal.<<

Agreed, they shouldn't be allowed to suppress or manipulate information regarding Saddam Hussein's collaboration with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. They also should quit suppressing information regarding the former Iraqi regime's programs, research and materials related to the production of WMD's.

>>As Moore has said, why does a guy in a baseball cap have to be the one to show everybody what's really going on? Why is everyone so complicit (or afraid of losing their couch)? Why do people sit in silence?<<

Because some fat guy from Michigan has it all figured out. Oh, I guess he's just PRETENDING to be a "guy in a baseball cap". He really is a wealthy puppeteer selling propaganda to disillusioned neo-hippies while living in a plush million dollar penthouse in New York. Remain calm....Moore has all the answers... Everyone else are pod people ala "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". Moore's been lying about himself ever since "Roger and Me" when he said he was from Flint, MI. Actually, he is from a upper middle class lily white suburb of Flint and couldn't even last a week working for G.M.! What a wuss!

>>Probably the most important thing Moore shows (we already knew Bush was a psychopath)<<

You realize that you called a sitting President a psychopath? You may disagree with his policies, you may not like his character, but a "pyschopath"? Please. It's pure hyperbole. Just like the stuff Moore shovels. You realize he makes so many errors in his psuedo-documentaries that he refuses to actually call them documentaries? When pressed he says they are "entertainment."


>>I knew then that the war was absolutely wrong and now that knowledge has been re-inforced by a trillion.<<

Some people are anti-war no matter what. Some people prefer thousands of Kurds getting gassed, Iraqis getting mutilated, tortured and murdered and 11 year olds getting raped by Saddam's sons. Some people think war doesn't solve anything. They're right, unless if your include slavery, communism and fascism. Now war is putting an end to extremist Islamic terrorism. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the situation is better than it was before. You may say "But people are still dying in Iraq!" Guess what? They were dying before the war, and in greater numbers than they are now. Democide, that is: death by totalitarian regimes, blows away war as a leading cause of human death and misery.

Even John Kerry says he wouldn't change his vote on the war.

Democracy gaining an important foothold in a volatile region of the world. Human rights for people in the Middle East is inevitable.

>>The world was not perfect before 9/11. But after 9/11 the world seems doomed.<<

Not perfect? The morale of the military was way down. Our intelligence infrastructure was broke. Islamic terrorism was being ignored by the Clinton administration.

>> We are literally on the Eve of Destruction. We are less safe than when Clinton was in office. That's fact, Jack.<<

Totally wrong. Terrorists are on the run, They are hiding in spider holes and cave complexes. They can't effectively plan, can't significantly act, can't recruit, can't train. Nations don't dare support terrorists now as THEY DID OPENLY PRIOR TO 9/11. All around the world, thousands of trained operatives are searching, investigating leads and hunting down members of al-Qaeda. Arrests fill the headlines on a weekly basis. Prior to 9/11, America was asleep. You are proposing that we should have hit the "snooze" button after 9/11.

>>I'm not a taxpayer in America, but if I was, I'd be making some loud noise over the use of my tax dollars for this fucking war. The disempowered poor people of America are being signed up for war.<<

I have no problem with taxpayer dollar's being spent on in the War on Terror. Operation Iraqi Freedom was a huge success as was our victory and liberation of Afghanistan. The ONE most basic need that brings people together is security. The War on Terror may bother the neo-hippies but most pragmatic people realize that to put the terrorists and their state sponsors on the defensive is the best way to keep everyone safe.

Check out moorelies.com, mooreexposed.com, or any of the other various fact checking sites on Moore. He is a charlatan and is laughing all the way to the bank on the dime of frustrated neo-hippies.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by stevetseitz
They also should quit suppressing information regarding the former Iraqi regime's programs, research and materials related to the production of WMD's.
Some people think war doesn't solve anything. They're right, unless if your include slavery, communism and fascism. Now war is putting an end to extremist Islamic terrorism.
I have no problem with taxpayer dollar's being spent on in the War on Terror. Operation Iraqi Freedom was a huge success. Moore is a charlatan and is laughing all the way to the bank on the dime of frustrated neo-hippies.

Dear Members:

Film enthusiast stevetseitz is back after a 5-month absence to impart some political wisdom. I propose that he has not seen the film under consideration, as he makes no reference to the film itself and calls those who have seen the film "frustrated neo-hippies". Let's avoid a repeat of the previous situation in which some posts degenerated into personal insults. Peter, can the post above (and this one) be moved to the LOUNGE section? (My daughter expressed her purely political opinion in that more appropriate forum). I entertain the possibility that there may be members who think something of value can be accomplished from engaging Mr. stevetseitz in a discussion.

Sincerely,
oscar

[Johann]

Cruel, vicious hate Steve- that's what you represent.

Yes, I called a sitting president a psychopath.
And I'll say it again with a bullhorn if you like.
Or a world-band radio frequency.
What is a psychopath? A person without conscience. Bush fits the bill.
As Vonnegut said: "Bush is a Christian? So was Hitler".

The man is Charles Manson with an even more demonic grin.
Is that more clear?

Hey Steve- you never mentioned oil in your rant.

That's my cue to disregard every hateful thing you typed.

[stevetseitz]

>>Cruel, vicious hate Steve- that's what you represent.<<

Excuse me? Did you even read what I posted? I simply responded to your post with a factual and logical retort. Since when is honest debate "cruel, vicious, hate"? Ahhh, the joys of communicating with leftists...

I don't hate anybody. It's against my religion. But being practical I also don't let the truly hateful people of the world bad-mouth sitting presidents without any facts. Sorry. I also think it's very dangerous to appease Islamic extremist terrorists. World Wars have started with such appeasement.

>>Yes, I called a sitting president a psychopath.
And I'll say it again with a bullhorn if you like.
Or a world-band radio frequency.
What is a psychopath? A person without conscience. Bush fits the bill.<<

What makes you think he has no conscience? What would be unconscionable would be for the leader of the free world to not respond to terrorists and their state-sponsors after 3,000 people were murdered in the World Trade Center. Bush responded properly and justly with a War on Terror. Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime and the Taliban were both state-sponsors of terror.



>>Hey Steve- you never mentioned oil in your rant.

That's my cue to disregard every hateful thing you typed.<<

Why would I? Has America taken over oil production in Iraq? Are we building a secret pipeline in Afghanistan? No and no. I can hear you thinking "Halliburton"...Well guess what? If you can name another American Gas and Oil field service company with the infrastructure to rebuild Iraq's production facilities please do so. Waiting....

If you want to bring oil into the issue why not go after Russia, France, and Germany's complicity in the UN's Oil for food scandal. It's a scandal far surpassing Enron by the way. Oil is the one resource stabilizing the Middle-East. I shudder to think what will become of the area when we have moved on to fuel-cell and electric vehicles.


>>Film enthusiast stevetseitz is back after a 5-month absence to impart some political wisdom.<<

Hey, the response showed up in my inbox. I don't see what not posting for a while has to do with anything. I moved halfway across the globe and finally devised a way to access the internet (although not with the speed I like)

>> I propose that he has not seen the film under consideration, as he makes no reference to the film itself and calls those who have seen the film "frustrated neo-hippies".<<

I've been a little busy relocating to see every piece of propaganda that comes down the pike. I would never see a film of Moore's when my viewing it would provide the man with any financial gain. The last film I saw was "Collateral" which I reviewed on IMDB. I have seen many sections of the Moore's film, particularly the ones with all the factual errors (Something like 36 omissions and/or outright lies.)

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by stevetseitz
I've been a little busy relocating to see every piece of propaganda that comes down the pike. I would never see a film of Moore's when my viewing it would provide the man with any financial gain.

Then, post your political views in the appropriate forum. This thread was created to discuss the film. Go to the "Lounge" section.

[stevetseitz]

Like I said, this thread showed up in my inbox out of the blue and I simply responded to it. It's a bit of a double standard to tell me you find my political views unacceptable in this forum, while Johann can spout off anywhere he pleases. But I'll be happy to comply and continue this debate anywhere and anytime...:)

[pmw]

I've moved this to the lounge not in any attempt to make it less visible or less relevant. It's an entirely relevant and timely discussion, and the Lounge is a good spot for it. I would add that people need to be civil regardless of a difference of opinion. This country is vastly diverse and while I have my own opinions I don't expect everyone to share them. Nor do I think that that would make for a very interesting democratic system.

Born in Texas, schooled in Vermont and living in NY gives me a broad range of exposure to politics and beliefs, and while I have a firm set of my own beliefs, I have met few people whose beliefs do not stem from a true conviction that they are right. In other words, discussion of the tenants of belief is much more interesting and appropriate than berating someone's character for having a certain set of beliefs...it tends not to resonate in any real way. Hope thats not too pacifying! Feel free to speak your mind of course....
P

[Johann]

No more politics for me- I got films to see.

Re-read the Eve of Destruction thread Steve.
You and anduril are cut from the same cloth.

anduril TROUNCED me in that thread- you should enjoy reading it.

[HorseradishTree]

steve,

I suggested this to anduril and I strongly suggest it to you. Hop the flick. It's relatively easy. Or you could download it illegally, and Moore said he doesn't mind if you do.

[stevetseitz]

I'll probably get around to seeing it next time I'm in my old stomping grounds where I know a guy who owns a video store. That way I can watch the film with no revenue going to Moore.


On a side note, I have a few flaming liberal friends who went to see Moore when he came to Portland a few months back for a book signing. They came back from the "rally" extremely disappointed in Moore. My friends wife's quote: "He kinda sucks."

At this same event, Moore exhorted the crowd to give him the number of a local conservative talk radio host whom I consider a friend. Moore proceeded to broadcast this person's home number throughout the entire crowd resulting in death threats and harassment of the conservative talk radio host by the "peace- loving" Moore fans.

A class act all around.

[anduril]

Originally posted by stevetseitz
Like I said, this thread showed up in my inbox out of the blue and I simply responded to it. It's a bit of a double standard to tell me you find my political views unacceptable in this forum, while Johann can spout off anywhere he pleases. But I'll be happy to comply and continue this debate anywhere and anytime...:)
Isn't this the truth!! I posted several responses in the F9/11 thread after the threads failed to take off... and, despite actually having some reasonable debate, was repeatedly told to buzz off by Knipp and Johann so that they could discuss the "FILM". Yet, as soon as I agreed to stop posting, they started posting rants against me and my posts. On one occasion, I asked if they wanted me to join back in given that they were responding to my posts but they quickly reiterated their position that I was not welcome and yet again, they continued to post against my posts rather than discuss the film. What's more, they have yet to answer my challenge to identify even one reason to see the movie; they have yet to comment on the movie in a such a way as to make it obvious that I'm out of the loop. Personally, their reasoning seems clear... they want their soapbox, they aren't willing to let those views be challenged, and they don't tolerate other views.

Steve, it is self-evident that Johann has little to provide except venomous, outrageous, and hate-filled rhetoric. Personally, I'm disappointed and apalled at the obvious double-standard on this site to which you make reference. Your posts were primarily on issue and did not have the hate-filled rhetoric that Johann claims, beyond perhaps one or two quick shots that were mild (and probably more for effect than anything else). By comparison, see Johann's sincerely intended and oft-repeated hate posts in the various F9/11 threads that have nothing to do with the film, except for its exalted praises for Moore. It's undeniably Johann that has repeatedly, persistently, and continuely lowered the bar in the F9/11 threads by resorting to insults, prejudicial and bigotted remarks against people and religions, and other assorted venom; he's a hypocrite, plain and simple, by even suggesting that your posts are hate-filled (and so is Oscar for calling you out on "frustrated neo-hippies" but not once bristling at Johann's posts, which were/are loaded with swears, anti-religious bigotry, and hate speech and which never comment on the film beyond extolling the virtues of Moore). The worst of Johann's posts even caused PMW to delete and edit, which considering the hate speech that is still up on the threads, gives you a sense of just how bad Johann got. Personally, I've given up on talking to these guys. In my mind, their posts are the best possible evidence to their poor logic and outrageous hatred of their fellow Americans than anything I might offer in rebuttal.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by anduril
he's a hypocrite (and so is Oscar for calling you out on "frustrated neo-hippies" but not once bristling at Johann's posts

You have the right to insult me anduril, especially in this forum. I have never insulted you and I wish to respond.

I decided not to respond to stevetseitz labeling me (and everyone who's seen the film) "frustrated neo-hippie" because I don't consider "hippie" an insult and because I am actually "frustrated" about the actions of my State government and my Country's government beginning on Election Day 2000. I also acknowledge guilt feelings, as probably do most of the 98,000 Floridians who voted for Nader, mostly LIBERALS like me who feel the Democratic Party has tossed us aside. LIBERALS like me who feel both Parties have sold out to Big Business. My guilt feelings are exacerbated by the knowledge that if only 600 of us had voted for Gore our present reality would be much different.

Back to the main issue: you calling me a hypocrite, the first insult hurled my way in two years of participation at this excellent site. The reason I "called him out on frustrated neo-hippies" was to explain why I suspected the poster had not seen the film, given that he didn't state so categorically and that he is unlikely to consider himself a "frustrated neo-hippie". I felt that it was inappropriate for anyone who hadn't seen the film to post in a thread specifically created by our moderator to discuss the film. Our moderator has wisely directed posts such as the one I am writing to the appropriate forum, where discussion need not pertain to cinema.

With regards to Johann and other members posting on the 9/11 threads, I wish you had shown more empathy and understanding. A lot of us feel deeply sad about the sacrifice of innocent lives and the squandering of resources. We have strong convictions that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified. Moreover, many of us feel that this type of violent action breeds hate and increases the possibility that we will again be the target of terrorism. You may disagree but I suspect this is the genesis of Johann's passionate outrage. I expected you to realize it comes from a good, noble place. You had gone a long way towards changing my perceptions of folks who identify strongly with any of the major organized religions. I bid adieu by thanking you for the enjoyable exchanges we had.

[anduril]

You are right, Oscar, that this was the first time I insulted you. I do not generally do so because I do not see it as a productive way to discuss points. But, in this case, I was bothered by your actions because you had chosen to post very little in the F9/11 thread, even when I tried to back out as per Knipp's and Johann's objections, but then suddenly you post to jump on Steve and accuse him of baiting a discussion that will degenerate into personal insults and be off-topic. From my vantage, no one is more guilty of that in those threads than Johann... and at epidemic proportions. I could count on one hand the number of salient points Johann made in what probably amounted to 60-80 posts. His comments were outrageous, over-the-top, and probably offensive to many. And yet, not a peep from you on that... but then out of nowhere you slag Steve. That strikes me as hypocrisy... If not, please help me understand the way you see this.

As for my lack of empathy and understanding... I'm not so sure I showed a lack of empathy. First of all, I'm as horrified by loss of life, whatever the nationality, as the next man. In fact, this is at the core of my arguments against Knipp and Johann. They seem to think that Saddam was some neighbourhood bully whose actions weren't really that bad. Yet, this man exterminated whole tribes that had existed practically since the dawn of civilization. He used chemical weapons against men, women, and children. He stopped the Tigris and Euphrates from flowing in order to cut off the southern tribes from water; in so doing, he destroyed a way of life that quite literally gave birth to the earliest civilizations and he annihilated a truly amazing ecosystem. This man tortured, brutalized, and killed thousands upon thousands. The British and the Americans did everything in their power to stop him (post-Halabja); they ended their commercial and diplomatic ties; they imposed sanctions; they tried to isolate him in a myriad of ways; they repelled his invasion of Kuwait; they set up more sanctions; they tried weapons inspectors (twice); they set up no-fly zones; they even tried to have the man assassinated; they tried to foment rebellion. Still, the man was belligerent and tyrannical. In 1994, just one year after GWI, he set up his forces to try again to invade Kuwait. He repeatedly evaded the inspectors. And then, with the Oil for Food program, he finally discovered a mechanism to re-arm and this he was doing. Billions were being funneled to Saddam (and to the French and Russians, by the way) via this program. It is a scandal of outrageous proportions. But, let me stop short before I write an essay, I empathize with the outrage over the loss of life caused by GWII; but that doesn't change the fact that it was a necessary war. Saddam had to go, sooner rather later. It also doesn't justify the tirades that Johann went on against Bush, Jesus, and just about everything he could get his hands on.

Believe it or not, I'm no Bush-lackey; and, I'm also not a Fundamentalist Christian. But, Johann, went too far!

Do I think you, Oscar, have noble intentions in your anti-war stance? Sure, at least from what I know of you.

Even with Johann, I repeatedly avoided his attempts to bait me into personal insults and attacks... read my posts. The only person that I baited with some insults was Knipp and I only did it with regard to his constant bickering about me "hijacking" the thread and then at the same time he would engage my posts rather than discuss what he apparently really wanted to discuss. He acted like I was controlling the forum or something. My insults were never directed at his position on the war or on Michael Moore's film; there I dealt in facts... being the only one to provide links to actual primary sources (rather than just opinion pieces). What's more, when he posted some critical interaction with the film, I responded by pointing out where I agreed with him; not an easy thing to do!

So, Oscar, perhaps you ought to re-evaluate my presentation and really ask if I lacked empathy and understanding... or, if it's just that you feel strongly about this and so my taking a different position felt abrasive to you...

For my part, I stand by my conduct and arguments. Perhaps, my only regret is that I took the sarcasm a bit far... but I was downright amazed at how much they were willing to agree on.

In any case, I thank-you for the kind comments that you made at the beginning of your post... and I hope you would reconsider your evaluation of my conduct here and in the F9/11 threads.

[Johann]

I was outraged and still am outraged at the plain and simple fact that Steve and anduril do not seem to acknowledge the severity of what we are discussing here.

Have you heard me talk about oil?

This war is about oil- not Saddam.

Not Saddam.
Not Saddam.
Not Saddam.

Are you listening? Obviously not. You two are completely ignoring the reasons for this war. Oil. Not terrorism, not Saddam, not WMD's.

Oil. People are dying for oil. That's what my passionate outrage is based on- the needless, pointless deaths that result from Bush's business interests.

This is the severity of this situation in Iraq. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with safety or fighting potential terrorists.

You two blind clowns are not informed on what this war is all about. You blindly, stupidly endorse murder.

That's my argument with you. That's what my rants & venomous attacks on you are based on-pardon me for being righteous- I am 100% correct.

[stevetseitz]

>>This war is about oil- not Saddam.

Not Saddam.
Not Saddam.
Not Saddam. <<

This war is about terrorism. Before we can discuss anything intelligently we must establish some definitions.

Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians and non-combatants to create fear to obtain a political objective.

State sponsorship of terrorism is refuge, financing, training, weapons, intelligence or logistical support of terrorists.

It is indisputable fact that Saddam Hussein has engaged in all of the above listed activities. The times, names and dates of the following list were confirmed by the bi-partisan 9/11 commission:

1985: The mastermind behind the hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, Abu Abbas, was harbored and welcomed by the Iraqi regime.

1988: More than 5,000 Kurdish men, women and children are massacred in the village of Halabja by Saddam Hussein’s forces using weapons of mass destruction.

1992: Iraqi intelligence documents list Osama Bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset.

1993: A non aggression pact between Iraq and al-Qaeda is formed. The rift between secular and Islamic extremists in the Middle East has all but disappeared.

1994: Deputy Director of Iraqi intelligence confirms that Osama Bin Laden requested arms and training from Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime.

1995: Abu Hajer al Iraqi, a senior al-Qaeda leader, met with Iraqi intelligence officials.

1996: A phone call between al-Qaeda-supported Sudanese military officials and the head of Iraq’s chemical weapons program was intercepted by the NSA.

1997:Abu Abdallah al Iraqi, a member of al-Qaeda, went to Iraq to help in obtaining weapons of mass destruction.

1998: The Clinton administration’s justice department indicted Iraq for providing “assistance” to al-Qaeda’s weapons development program.

1999: A senior Clinton administration counter terrorism official said that the U.S. government was “sure” Iraq had supported al-Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999.

2000: September 11th hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar was photographed with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Kuala Lumpur en route to a meeting at which the terrorist attacks of the USS Cole and the World Trade Center were planned and discussed.

2001: Satellite images show al-Qaeda members traveling to a compound in Iraq, a compound financed in part, by the Iraqi regime.

September 11th, 2001: The World Trade Centers in Manhattan, in the heart of New York City become ground zero for the worst terror attacks in American history. Attacks were carried out by members of al-Qaeda.

2002: Senior al Qaeda member, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, operated openly in Baghdad and received medical attention with the knowledge and approval of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.

2003: Prior to the war in Iraq, it was suspected that Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq harbored and supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi weapons expert who mixed the chemicals for the
1993 World Trade Center attack. This was confirmed in documents found in postwar Iraq.


Your oil theory is convenient and it sounds good as a slogan or written on a signboard, but it is completely false and, more to the point, totally illogical.

Oil prices rise when wars in the Middle East happen, high oil prices adversely affect all other levels of the economy. Bad economies don't get Presidents re-elected. If Bush had some diabolical plan (which I have yet to hear any leftists describe) he would do nothing as Clinton did, allow state-sponsors to continue to support and encourage terrorists. Like Clinton he could talk tough in speeches and maybe lob a few cruise missiles. He would appease the terrorists and allow them to continue to recruit, train, and plan devastating attacks. In doing so he would also appease our "allies" France, Germany, and Russia who were making billions in contracts through corruption in the UN food for oil program.


>>Are you listening? Obviously not. You two are completely ignoring the reasons for this war. Oil. Not terrorism, not Saddam, not WMD's.

Oil. People are dying for oil. That's what my passionate outrage is based on- the needless, pointless deaths that result from Bush's business interests.<<

Wrong. If you had your way. Iraq would still be a totalitarian regime. Innocent Iraqis would be getting kidnapped, beaten, tortured, raped and killed by a ruthless Baathist dictator (and in greater numbers than fell in the Iraq war.) The Taliban would still be throwing homosexuals off roofs in Afghanistan and harboring al-Qaeda.

John Stewart Mill said, "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

The biggest killer the world has ever seen isn't war. It's Democide. Totalitarian regimes like Hitler's, Stalin's, Mao's, the Khmer Rouge and Saddam Hussein's are responsible for far more human suffering and death than all wars combined!

You have no facts. You have only emotion. You have the desire to believe what you believe because of an irrational world view.

If you have any facts please provide some shred of evidence. I have defined the terms about which I am speaking and provided confirmed dates, names and places. You have slogans.


(Please also note that I refrained from calling you any names in this post because it's immature and serves no purpose.)

[anduril]

BRAVO, Steve!!!

May I reproduce that on my blog?

[stevetseitz]

Absolutely. Go for it, If the leftist mainstream media won't spread the correct information it'll be up to the individuals with passion.

[Johann]

Consatta mon destructa Steve.


Oil theory? You think this is a theory? Ho Ho HO.

Your little post about dates and facts is no doubt correct.

I'm not disputing your claims about Saddam's dictatorship and practices. We share the belief that Saddam is one evil fuck.

Where we differ and where we violently disagree is on the U.S. involvement.


Saddam's sadistic-ness does not give any country, let alone the States the right to invade, bomb, and MURDER INNOCENT PEOPLE.

This ain't no theory. This ain't no sissy iced-tea. You can sit in your comfortable home on a computer and bark about terrorism all you want- this war is about seizing an opportunity to make massive amounts of money- at the cost of lives and freedom, not to "fight for it".

People- innocent people- are being murdered. Yeah I heard you shout about Saddam murdering people- "Democide"- but two wrongs don't make a right Steve.

anduril is slapping your back because he believes in the bible- a book that preaches "an eye for an eye". anduril has never heard of Gandhi.

I can't help but shake my head in disbelief that you think waging war makes one safer.

What planet are you from? Who taught you your values?

Do you value human life at all? Do you think life is sacred? I do.

Innocents. Innocents. Innocents. Whether they be soldiers or civilians, they being slaughtered- for OIL.

It's not a slogan. It's a FACT. Iraq is #2 in the world for Oil reserves. The U.S. HAS taken over oil in Iraq. Bush and his business partners are making an obscene fortune DAILY- in Fahrenheit Moore tells us Bush recorded a one-day profit of $237 MILLION dollars. ONE DAY!

And you say this war is about terrorism? I'm sick of defending truth.

You really are blind. Sign up for war, guys. I wanna see you two put your money where your mouths are. Terrorism is not something you can fight- they still can't find Osama. They haven't gotten retribution for 9/11. Families want answers.

What did they get? They got a president who murders foreigners and says he's doing it for freedom.

The oxymorons, the irony, the blindness, the lies and the people who believe them...

You two are revolting fascists who support murder. If one single innocent person dies, you support murder.

The United States could be applauded if no innocents were harmed. But thousands were. Thousands bit the dust. For nothing but greed.

I find it incredible that the US sent the ARMY to root out Saddam. You'd think they'd use a more elite force to "smoke him out"- you'd think they would use a tactical unit from a city police force (Baghdad is a city after all), but no, they used an infantry unit- pictures of Saddam's capture revealed infantrymen with their "trophy".

Not to mention that the Us stood idly by while terrorists such as Pol Pot, Ceaucescu, and Marcos were left alone.

Saddam is the guy we gotta get! Why? Oil daddy-O

Keep dreaming, fellas- as long as you support mass murder while claiming your halo of justice, you're gonna suffer for it.

[Johann]

Oh yeah, and anduril- after you left the Fahrenheit threads Chris and I discussed the film- me especially. You tend to gloss over my "salient points". You don't seem to read my replies.
Go back and read the posts after your departure- I talk about what Moore put in his movie A LOT.

Given the subject of his film, politics is unavoidable. The film is an op-ed on Bush- the President. (or should I say False-President) and his conduct before and after 9/11.

This isn't a "movie" we're discussing here- this is real life.
And you two are on the wrong side.
If you think the Iraq invasion was justified you have no conscience- just like Bush.

There have always been and always will be dictators and terrorists- they love the drama I think, they love the power.
To "wage war" with terrorists is absurd- how do you fight a terrorist?

Moore shows in his film that when at an airport, security doesn't take matches or lighters from passengers when they board, (they might want a smoke when they stopover in Timbuktu) yet matches and lighters pose a little bit of a risk, no?

Those terrorists hijacked those planes with box-cutters.

How could anyone forsee that? If someone wants to terrorize, they'll do it by any means necessary.

[anduril]

See, again, Jason does not engage in reasoned debate... he attacks... Steve offers a post with clear facts that support his stated position and rather than dispute those facts or provide his own, Jason simply insults and baits, e.g., he calls both Steve and I "blind" and "revolting fascists who support murder."

He also tries to tar my arguments as religious ones and assumes I would appeal to a verse of Scripture that I would not. I have not once used a religious argument in defense of the war in Iraq.

His innocent people argument is also just invective because he does not at all grant that both Steve and I have argued for the war precisely because we desire to limit the loss of human life. Steve and I simply agree that Saddam's tyranny was far worse than the war (short-term and long-term). This war was/is necessary.

He provides only one piece of evidence to support his argument that the war was about oil. On the basis of F9/11, he claims "Bush recorded a one-day profit of $237 MILLION dollars." Of course, anyone who paid attention to the movie would know that this is not what is claimed. Here's what the film claims (by contrast):

"September 11th guaranteed that United Defense was going to have a very good year. Just 6 weeks after 9-11 Carlyle filed to take United Defense public and in December made a one day profit of $237 million dollars."

First, it is plainly clear that this is not evidence that oil was the issue in Iraq, this having occurred a mere six weeks after 9-11, and the company here that made the "profit" was United Defense, a company that has nothing to do with oil.

Second, there is nothing unusual about a company making a stock offering; it happens all the time in America. As stock offerings go, in fact, $237 million is hardly a bonanza. Google, e.g., expects to make roughly $3 billion from its IPO, which started Friday.

Third, because this money was raised through a stock offering, it is not strictly speaking a profit. The company sold shares... ownership in its company.

Fourth, quite obviously, Bush didn't make $237 million as Jason claims. United Defense earned $237 million by selling shares in its company; none of this money would go to him. What's more, in order to assume the office of President, the law requires the divestiture of assets and the creation of blind trusts by the President. The Federal Government has extensive conflict of interest rules.

I could keep going actually because as evidence of anything, this little tidbit from F9/11 proves nothing. Moore clearly chose to report it simply because of the timing of it and the Bush family ties to the Carlyle Group, which owns United Defense, made for a racy line that could easily suggest something else to the audience. Moore clearly banks on the fact that people won't understand the ins and outs of the financial world. He knows that the audience will hear this line and rather than walk out with facts, they will believe that "Bush recorded a one-day profit of $237 MILLION dollars."

P.S. Ironic, huh? That a person who hasn't seen the film has to point out to someone who did what the film actually claims...

P.P.S. I read every post in the F9/11 threads. Before and after I left the threads... after I left, both Jason and Chris primarily engage me or the political issues that the films raise. I've yet to read a post in those threads that really engages the craft, except for the ocassional errant platitudes about Moore and the visuals.

[EDITS: Added italics after Johann posted a reply].

[Johann]

Innocent people dying is just invective?
You've just proven your cruel ignorance to human life.
Don't dare say that this war is about saving lives anduril.
Saddam's evil was worse than this war?
How dare you speak for the Iraqi people?!
Who do you think you are

OOPS! Sorry- Bush made $237 million BEFORE the war.
I stand corrected.
I'll try to find out how much he made today- give me some time.

[stevetseitz]

>>I'm not disputing your claims about Saddam's dictatorship and practices. We share the belief that Saddam is one evil fuck.<<

And if you were in charge he would still be in power in Iraq kidnapping, beating, murdering, torturing and raping any who defied him.

>>Where we differ and where we violently disagree is on the U.S. involvement. Saddam's sadistic-ness does not give any country, let alone the States the right to invade, bomb, and MURDER INNOCENT PEOPLE.<<

You emphasize MURDER. If human loss of life is your main complaint, then invasion was certainly justified. More Iraqis were dying in Iraq prior to the war at the hand's of Saddam's thugs than are now! Human rights atrocities have long been used as a justification for military action. Milosevich and his ethnic cleansing warranted the power of the U.S. military.

The principled people of the world have a responsibility to stand up against atrocities like the Nazi concentration camps, the slaughter in Cambodia. When the U.N. is paralyzed by politics that is not an excuse for inaction.

>>This ain't no theory. This ain't no sissy iced-tea. You can sit in your comfortable home on a computer and bark about terrorism all you want- this war is about seizing an opportunity to make massive amounts of money- at the cost of lives and freedom, not to "fight for it".<<

And you can sit spinning fantastic conspiracy theories at your comfortable home on a computer. If massive amounts of money are being made PROVE it. You don't have a shred of evidence. By the way after 9/11, I quit my lucrative sales career and took a significant pay CUT by joining the Department of Homeland Security so I at least put my "money where my mouth is."

>>People- innocent people- are being murdered. Yeah I heard you shout about Saddam murdering people- "Democide"- but two wrongs don't make a right Steve.<<

If you have two choices and both are bad, you must choose the lesser of two evils. Teddy Roosevelt said, "I abhor unjust war. I abhor injustice and bullying by the strong at the expense of the weak, whether among nations or individuals. I abhor violence and bloodshed. But it takes strength to put a stop to abhorrent things." The U.S. had the military strength and the moral obligation to put a stop to Saddam's bullying. We had tried diplomacy with this "secular" leader for about 15 years. Nothing worked. Not sanctions, not UN security council resolutions. Nothing.


>>I can't help but shake my head in disbelief that you think waging war makes one safer.<<

History proves it. Nearly 170 million people have been murdered by governments in the 20th Century, 1900-1987; over four-times those killed in combat in all international and domestic wars during the same years. Yet, the "peace loving" neo-hippies keep touting the values of the totalitarian communist ideal. It's sad really.

>>What planet are you from? Who taught you your values?
Do you value human life at all? Do you think life is sacred? I do.<<

Apparently not as much as anduril or I do. We think that a war, no matter how costly is better than cowardice and inaction that allows the deaths of innocent people. Teddy Roosevelt said: "Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaiden of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy."

>>Innocents. Innocents. Innocents. Whether they be soldiers or civilians, they being slaughtered- for OIL.<<

A soldier isn't innocent. He or she goes to war with the objective of defeating the enemy and with knowledge that their enemy is trying to defeat them. It's clear from their training and their commitment that they understand they are putting their lives on the line. In this case, they are risking their lives to establish a democracy, the ultimate engine for human rights, in the heart of the Middle East. Thus far, the Middle East is a region which has fallen behind the rest of the world in freedom, thus has some of the worst human rights atrocities.

>>It's not a slogan. It's a FACT. Iraq is #2 in the world for Oil reserves. The U.S. HAS taken over oil in Iraq. Bush and his business partners are making an obscene fortune DAILY- in Fahrenheit Moore tells us Bush recorded a one-day profit of $237 MILLION dollars. ONE DAY!<<

Oh and because Master Moore says it, it must be so, right? Must the drooling, mind-numbed followers of this demagogue be spoon fed information so they can regurgitate it like an involuntary reflex? Any PROOF? Or just unsubstatiated lies?

>>And you say this war is about terrorism? I'm sick of defending truth.<<

"You can't handle the truth!" It had to be said this is a movie forum after all.

>>You really are blind. Sign up for war, guys. I wanna see you two put your money where your mouths are. Terrorism is not something you can fight- they still can't find Osama. They haven't gotten retribution for 9/11. Families want answers.

What did they get? They got a president who murders foreigners and says he's doing it for freedom.<<

They got a president with the courage to lead. They got a leader who didn't avoid hard political questions in the War on Terror. By eliminating Saddam's regime and the Taliban. President Bush has eliminated two regimes that were state sponsors of terrorism. This sends a clear message, a message that people like Qadhafi heard loud and clear. The U.S., after 9/11 will no longer tolerate regimes that support terror. After all, what is a terrorist without refuge, financing, weapons, training, intelligence or logistical support? He is a petty criminal capable of harming almost no one.

>>The oxymorons, the irony, the blindness, the lies and the people who believe them..
You two are revolting fascists who support murder. If one single innocent person dies, you support murder.<<

Fascism is a form of socialism and a kissing cousin of communism. Both are totalitarian ideologies that require broad state control, if not ownership, of the means of production. If anything your political views are far closer to Fascism than mine.


>>The United States could be applauded if no innocents were harmed.<<

Nice utopian fantasy about war but people like Saddam used human shields to defend military targets (which violates the Geneva convention) in both the Gulf War and the Iraq War.

But thousands were. Thousands bit the dust. For nothing but greed.<<

Tens of thousands "bit the dust" under Saddam's regime.

>>I find it incredible that the US sent the ARMY to root out Saddam. You'd think they'd use a more elite force to "smoke him out"- you'd think they would use a tactical unit from a city police force (Baghdad is a city after all), but no, they used an infantry unit- pictures of Saddam's capture revealed infantrymen with their "trophy".<<

You really think Saddam would HIDE from a "tactical unit"? He would obliterate them with his elite troops. We learned our lesson in Somalia about going in with less than adequate forces. It's called the "Powell Doctrine". You should read about it.

>>Not to mention that the Us stood idly by while terrorists such as Pol Pot, Ceaucescu, and Marcos were left alone.<<

Stood idly by? Hardly. Rather than act with our military, the U.S. did what you propose: we talked tough and did nothing. Oh, well millions slaughtered, but at least the U.S. didn't act!

>>Saddam is the guy we gotta get! Why? Oil daddy-O Keep dreaming, fellas- as long as you support mass murder while claiming your halo of justice, you're gonna suffer for it.<<

You still have yet to prove one iota of your theory! It's laughable. Where is the paper trail. At least post a link!!! Come on. Surely you must have SOME proof. Still waiting...

[stevetseitz]

"A just war is better in the long term for a man's character than the most prosperous peace"

"Things that WILL DESTROY AMERICA are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life."

"No qualities called out by a purely peaceful life stand on a level with those stern and virile virtues which move the men of stout heart and strong hand who uphold the honor of their flag in battle"

"A nation is not wholly admirable unless in times of stress it will go to war for a great ideal"

"Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaiden of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy."

"I never advocate preparation for war in order to avert war; and I should never advocate war itself unless it were the only possible alternative to shame and dishonor."

"I abhor unjust war. I abhor injustice and bullying by the strong at the expense of the weak, whether among nations or individuals. I abhor violence and bloodshed. But it takes strength to put a stop to abhorrent things."

-Teddy Roosevelt


People who are "anti-war" often overlook that the alternative is far more deadly. Democide, or murder by government is a far greater cause of human misery and suffering than war.

In the 20th century, international and domestic wars, revolutions, and violent conflicts have led to the deaths of about 35,654,000.

In the 20th century, Democide (the murder of any person or people by a government) murder led to the deaths of at minimum 170,000,000. This figure is extremely conservative and may actually be closer to 300,000,000.

The research shows that democracies rarely fight with other democracies and democratic governments almost never engage in democide against their own people. The research also shows that communist and fascist states have done a vast majority of the killing of their own people. And most of the wars that democracies DO fight are against communist and fascist states.

Some people incorrectly believe that fascism and communism are opposites when in reality they are "kissing cousins" The appellation of "communism" comes from the Latin root communis, which means "group" living. Fascism is a derivation of the Italian word fascio, which is translated as "bundle" or "group." Both fascism and communism are forms of coercive group living, or more succinctly, collectivism.

[anduril]

Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves (http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/iraq_mass_graves.pdf)

But the Iraqis didn't want freedom from this... right?!??!?

[stevetseitz]

Have you also seen the websites from Halabja?

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

[anduril]

Yes I had, but thank-you for posting it here.

Somehow, Steve, we are the ones who support mass murder because we support the decision to get rid of the tyrannical SOB who did this?!?!?!

...and lest anyone still thinks the Iraqis did not want the American intervention, let them look at the Oxford Research Polls to which I link in the F9/11 threads... Iraqis supported the invasion even one year after it happened (imagine the results in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Saddam... or his subsequent capture).

[Johann]

Because we have a card-carrying member of Homeland Security and a devout student of politics I must concede defeat in these debates.

I am supremely emotional on this one, you better believe it.
I would love to provide links and paper trails but I severely lack any interest in pursuing it.

I'm 100% right JUST ON PRINCIPLE

You two will bully, just like Bush and I'll just keep being an emotional idiot with no facts.

So I throw in the towel.

If anyone has the willpower on this site to respond effectively to these two champions of human life, I extend a plea.

[anduril]

You are right. You are supremely emotional and thus it is clear that you have not arrived at your position by reason or facts (indeed, you have demonstrated that you have none). You prove the addage:

"You can't reason a person out of a position he never reasoned himself into in the first place."

In any case, now that you've thrown in the towel; I'm going to resort to an impassioned appeal. Here is me being emotional:

Contrary to your (and Oscar's) perception of me, I do sympathize with the anti-war argument and I truly do not desire to see anyone lose their life unjustly. Unfortunately, however, this world is imperfect and there are men, like Saddam, Hitler, and others, who do not share or sympathize with those who love peace, hate war, and value human life; they demonstrate time and again that they would continue to brutalize and torture people and wage war against others as long as the world lets them. It is them, not I or Steve or Bush or Blair, to whom your outrage should be directed. They, who would abuse their own people for their own gain, and force by their continued belligerence and violence the free peoples of the world to arm their people to fight their evil. I hate war; I lament that it is a crude instrument for justice; that innocent people die, war crimes are committed, and economies ruined. But, the war against Saddam was necessary and it was just (however imperfectly it may have been waged). It has finally put an end to Saddam's tyranny and it has given the Iraqi people the possibility--a possibility they have never glimpsed before-- that they may live in peace and freedom (if they desire it and the world, especially the U.S., maintains its will to help them).

It is ironic, really, that the one way the world may have been able to avoid the war and put an end to Saddam's rule in Iraq, would have been for every nation to have stood up and in unison delivered the ultimatum that Bush delivered 48 hours before the start of the war. My guess is that Saddam would have fled to Syria in the face of such an ultimatum (similar tyrants have done so in the face of less pressure). Unfortunately, the so-called "peace rallies" and the opposition to the war gave Saddam the sense that he could win the diplomatic showdown with the U.S./U.K. coalition and thus, the "peace rallies" and the opposition to the war, in an ironic twist, may have actually contributed to the war.

I'm tired of the inward looking nation state that uses arguments of "sovereignty" and "non-interference" to guise its selfishness and shirk its responsibilities to the oppressed; where did this "prime directive" come from anyways? It is time for the free nations to stand up and demand that the totalitarian states in this world, one-by-one, begin their reforms today on a timetable or immediately face the consequences. It is time to bring freedom to the oppressed. I am tired of hearing daily news items about genocide in Rwanda, Somalia, and the Sudan. I am tired of hearing about children recruited as soldiers. I am tired of hearing of Arab dictators, propped up by either their own oil or Western allies, who oppress and suppress their people. I am tired of hearing about people shot because they expressed their dissatisfaction with the government. I am tired of hearing of the institutionalized rape of women and children that goes on in many countries of the world. Most of all, I am tired of the argument that says we have no right to interfere. Bullshit! We not only have a right to interfere; we have a moral obligation to do so.

Finally, the U.S. stood up, opened its eyes, and knocked off two such totalitarian regimes; and now the liberals who cried against U.S. inaction in the past when these crimes were committed can do nothing better than bitch at them. C'mon. Enough is enough.

[JustaFied]

I'm going to venture into this argument and try to present a few of my qualms with the events in Iraq:

1) Evidently this is now primarily a human rights issue. Initially, the Bush Administration presented the Saddam regime as a "imminent threat", and the Niger high-grade uranium information was thrown out at us to scare us into jumping onto the war bandwagon. This information has since been disproved, and the vast quantities of weapons of mass destruction were never found. So why were we in such a rush to war? There was NO imminent threat, and they probably had a damn good idea that this was the case. As an American, I feel BETRAYED that their initial arguments turned out to be invalid, and in my opinion they played the "fear card" to rush into war. Now, the only justifiable argument in retrospect was that Saddam was a bad guy. No doubt true, but as Anduril points out, there are equally horrifying human rights violations going on RIGHT NOW in other parts of the world. Why are we not in Sudan RIGHT NOW? Why? Why did we do nothing in Rwanda? Why did we do nothing in Cambodia 25 years ago? Why don't we step in and demand changes to countries carrying out human rights violations on a lesser scale right now, countries like China, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt? That's hypocrisy for you. That's a double standard. So, based on that double standard, we need to step back and get a better overview of what the American objective is.

2) "A just war is better in the long term for a man's character than the most prosperous peace" - I just don't get this, Steve. I know that war is unavoidable sometimes, but that doesn't make those who go to war better people or of higher character than those who don't go to war. Prosperous peace is the longterm goal here, you seem to be equating that to some character flaw. That's sad.

3) Where is Osama? Why have we not caught him yet? I think this is a good point from Moore's movie. We were attacked by Al Qaeda, we should use all of our resources to shut down that organization and bring Osama and the Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders to justice, and what do we do? We turn our attention to Iraq. There is NO proven link between Al Qaeda and Saddam showing that Saddam had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Cheney, disingenously, won't let this point go. If you, Steve or Anduril, have links to show an Iraq - Al Qaeda link, please share them with us.

4) The Iraq war has created tremendous anti-American sentiment in the world, and it has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, which has helped drive the U.S. to record deficits. My opinion, especially knowing that Iraq was not an imminent threat, is that, at the least, we should not have rushed so quickly to war and should have explored other options of reducing the "threat" posed by Saddam.

5) The United States had no feasible plan for Iraq after removing Saddam. The removal of Saddam created a power vacuum in a country with little history of democracy. And we expected that they could peacefully set up a fully functional system of government where the disparate cultures all got along in harmony? That's the height of naivete.

6) It's also naive to think that American companies are not benefitting in an Iraq without Saddam. The uncertainity in the region (along with troubles in Russia) has pushed the price of oil to record levels. This is a windfall to the oil companies.

Okay, I'm going to stop now, take a deep breath, and return to the "purely peaceful, soft living" forum of film. Call me a coward.

[anduril]

Thank-you JustaFied for your comments. Personally, I feel that either Steve or I have dealt with most of these points (#1, 3,4, and 6) in this thread already (e.g. the al Qaeda/Iraq links confirmed by the 9/11 Commission) or in the F9/11 threads (e.g. the imminent threat argument and the reasons for the war). I would direct you back to those posts because to repeat them again and again is too time consuming. Both Steve and I have put considerable effort into several of our posts to ensure that our positions are supported by facts in evidence. Steve and I can not force you to read these posts or the links we provide but, between the two of us, we have provided an abundance of evidence for those truly interested in this debate.

As to the points that we may not have addressed, I will leave it to Steve to respond to #2 as this regards something he wrote.

I will venture to comment on #5. I grant, as does Paul Bremer and the Bush administration, that the transition from war in Iraq to nation building as been treacherous and difficult. However, it certainly has not been without a plan. Right off the top here, I'd like to quote Bremer, who appropriately observed,

"We shouldn't kid ourselves. It'll be sloppy and messy at the beginning," L. Paul Bremer said on "Fox News Sunday." "People forget it took us 12 years to write our own Constitution. It wasn't very pretty around here between 1776 and 1787." (Source: CNN)

Some initial mistakes were certainly made: insufficient protection was provided to hospitals, museums, and other locations to prevent looting; borders have been inadequately monitored; the entire Baathist civil service and the army was disbanded (an understandable yet flawed move that has since been partially rectified); in some cases, humanitarian aid was slow in arrival and reconstruction of certain essential infrastructure took longer than perhaps expected or desired; support was given to Chalabi; and some other things. Obviously, the single biggest problem has been Abu Ghraib. These flaws, however grave and serious, are not arguments against the war though. As a friend once remarked to Jason on my blog: "Just because a war isn't waged 'perfectly' is no reason to stop it. Just because you Jason don't live your life 'perfectly' is no reason for you to end it now."

Second and more importantly, I would direct you to this overview (http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/) of the accomplishments in Iraq since reconstruction efforts began. After looking at that overview, please tell me if that looks like the work of people without a plan?

[anduril]

Oh and JustaFied, with respect to #5, be sure not to confuse your expectations or media expectations, with what the administration actually said would happen.

[JustaFied]

Well, I believe I have read most of the posts that you and Steve have written, but I'll go back over them. Again, you guys are talking in noble terms about ending the reign of oppressive regimes, but what do you suggest we do in the situations of the other countries I mentioned? It gets pretty murky pretty quick. Most disturbing to me is his virulent pro-war stance. He seems to be suggesting that war should be the norm in our world. He talks about the need to counter "Democide", but he seems to be lumping in Islamic fundamentalism with the oppressive regimes of history. Al Qaeda is not affiliated with any particular country, so there is no place we can fight in the traditional sense. It's a different type of enemy, it's a different type of conflict, but the knee-jerk reaction seems to be to approach it in the same manner as we approached fighting Hitler or the Vietcong.

In my opinion, a large part of winning this "war" against Islamic fundamentalism is through education. We need to educate ourselves on why there is so much anti-American hatred being put out by these fundamentalists, and we should work to make sure these some of the corrupt autocratic states in the middle east clamp down on the level of this hatred being taught in their religious schools. It goes beyond simply sending in troops and beating their citizens into submission.

The goal of Islamic fundamentalism is not world domination. This is not WWII, where Hitler was bulldozing country after country. I would venture to say that Al Qaeda poses no threat to Norway (and probably not even a threat to Canada). And yet we play right into their hands, we turn this into a religious war where they become martyrs.

[anduril]

al Qaeda has been affiliated with several countries. Obviously, Afghanistan most notably. But, it has also received support and refuge from many others. Afghanistan and Iraq are now fronts against al Qaeda; al Qaeda fights coalition soldiers in both these countries. This is steadily diminishing their capacity. In addition, there are actions on-going against al Qaeda in the Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia (and perhaps elsewhere too). al Qaeda is being fought... I'll let Steve elaborate (he had a great summation of this a couple of posts back in this thread).

As for some of your other issues, I again think that they have been covered, especially by the eight points I made in this thread (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=6345).

[anduril]

Originally posted by JustaFied
In my opinion, a large part of winning this "war" against Islamic fundamentalism is through education. We need to educate ourselves on why there is so much anti-American hatred being put out by these fundamentalists, and we should work to make sure these some of the corrupt autocratic states in the middle east clamp down on the level of this hatred being taught in their religious schools. It goes beyond simply sending in troops and beating their citizens into submission.
We are not beating their citizens into submission... we are bringing down totalitarian regimes and giving the people the opportunity to be free. We are also giving them the opportunity to be educated, without the propaganda of their totalitarian regimes, which I agree with you is one of the major fronts in the war on terrorism.

As for learning why the Islamic Fundamentalists hate us... JustaFied I appreciate the sensitivity you are trying to develop here and indeed many Americans could stand to learn something about the way they are perceived in the world and in the Middle East in particular. However, and with all due respect, the Islamic Fundamentalists, at least those connected with bin Laden, hate America because it is America. There is nothing you can do to change this short of converting to Islam (or allowing Muslims to rule the country), instituting sharia law, and putting an end to the freedoms or excesses of American culture. They believe in jihad against the infidels until the world submits to Allah. Even their more immediate purposes, that is to remove all foreigners and non-Muslims from the Middle East and to drive Israel into the sea, are simply not objectives with which America should be empathizing. Theirs is a radical and militant agenda.

The only way to stop it, beyond fighting where we can as we do now, is to raise the level of freedom and enfranchisement in Middle Eastern countries so that young people will not be drawn to this agenda. The only way to raise the level of freedom and enfranchisement... encourage democracy and capitalism. In Iraq and Afghanistan, this has meant invasion. In Libya, embargoes and the examples of Iraq and Afghanistan have gone a long way. In Pakistan, economic incentives have encouraged change. For Iran, it appears necessary to isolate them until the youth of the country have a real chance to enact the reform they desperately desire. This is no cookie-cutter strategy... each country will require a particular approach. But, it must happen to change the way of life there and end the disenfranchisement that spawns terrorism.

[stevetseitz]

>>I'm going to venture into this argument and try to present a few of my qualms with the events in Iraq:

1) Evidently this is now primarily a human rights issue. Initially, the Bush Administration presented the Saddam regime as a "imminent threat", and the Niger high-grade uranium information was thrown out at us to scare us into jumping onto the war bandwagon.<<

Whoa nellie! Has the information REALLY been thrown out? The Senate report on the CIA's intelligence gathering concluded that, contrary to Wilson's statements about his own report, his findings had bolstered rather than undermined the case that Saddam had sought uranium from Niger. (The Senate committee also produced his wife's memo recommending her husband for the job. This followed Wilson's assertions that his wife "definitely had not proposed that I make the trip" and his astonishment that anyone could imagine his wife was "somehow involved in this," saying that "just defies logic." Wilson is notably a John Kerry supporter.)

>>This information has since been disproved, and the vast quantities of weapons of mass destruction were never found. So why were we in such a rush to war? There was NO imminent threat, and they probably had a damn good idea that this was the case.<<

David Kay's interim report on Iraqi WMD says:

"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.


A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.


Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.


New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.


Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).


A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.


Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.


Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.


Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment."

Disproved? Hardly!

The president used this knowledge in addition to the confirmed Iraq-al-Qaeda connection noted in my previous post, one could conclude that Iraq and it's weapons were indeed an imminent threat.

The threefold argument used by the Bush administration to justify the war in Iraq was that 1. Iraq had terror ties (again see previous post for details) 2. Iraq had WMD programs and 3. Iraq's human rights record was atrocious.

The danger posed to the world by a totalitarian regime can accurately be predicted by their treatment of their own people. Look at Hitler's actions prior to the War. Look at the bloody history of Stalin. Americans and people of the free world should take note when countries opress their own citizens.



>> As an American, I feel BETRAYED that their initial arguments turned out to be invalid, and in my opinion they played the "fear card" to rush into war. Now, the only justifiable argument in retrospect was that Saddam was a bad guy. No doubt true, but as Anduril points out, there are equally horrifying human rights violations going on RIGHT NOW in other parts of the world.<<

Other problems are never an excuse for not solving the one right in front of you.

>> Why are we not in Sudan RIGHT NOW? Why?<<

You don't think we are bringing all our diplomatic and financial resources to bear on Sudan? The whole point is we had been working on Iraq for over 20 years! Read the history. The U.S. government initially supported what they saw as a moderate leader in Iran. Iraq, at the time, was a Soviet satellite down to their baathist roots. When the Shah was overthrown, the U.S. had two choices, try and court the supposedly "secular" leader Saddam Hussein or have no influence in this vital region. The U.S. used this same strategy with some success in other parts of the world. Secular leaders were traditionally seen as easier to work with than idealogues.

>> Why did we do nothing in Rwanda? Why did we do nothing in Cambodia 25 years ago? Why don't we step in and demand changes to countries carrying out human rights violations on a lesser scale right now, countries like China, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt? That's hypocrisy for you.<<

Those countries you mention aren't dealing directly with the terrorists who killed 3,000 people in New York City on Sept. 11th.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq was.

There is a line from one of my favorite sports films, "Hoosiers":
"Look mister, there's two kinds of dumb, the guy that gets naked
and runs out in the snow and starts barking at the moon, and the guy who does the same thing in my living room. The first one don't matter. The second one you're kinda forced to deal with."

>>"A just war is better in the long term for a man's character than the most prosperous peace" - I just don't get this, Steve. I know that war is unavoidable sometimes, but that doesn't make those who go to war better people or of higher character than those who don't go to war. Prosperous peace is the longterm goal here, you seem to be equating that to some character flaw. That's sad.<<

No, you are missing the "just" part at the beginning of Roosevelt's comment. His point is that even if you can profit by letting an injustice stand, it's a matter of principle. It's character building to make the tough choices now rather than pawning the decision off to some future leader. Did Bush have to act when he did? Of course not. He could have done nothing, talked tough like Clinton and maybe lobbed a few cruise missiles here or there.

State sponsors would have seen Bush's inaction and continued to sponsor terrorists both here and abroad. America would be in greater danger. Bush made the tough choice. Our President decided to take the battle to the very heart of the region from which our enemies come. He has liberated 50 million in Iraq. Afghanistan will be holding democratic elections soon. This in a place that was run by the Taliban until recently. We have captured one of the biggest war criminals in history and a known state sponsor of terrorism in Saddam Hussein. Arrests are being made almost daily as panic sets in among the terrorists. It's a mad rush to leave a sinking ship.

>>3) Where is Osama? Why have we not caught him yet? I think this is a good point from Moore's movie. We were attacked by Al Qaeda, we should use all of our resources to shut down that organization and bring Osama and the Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders to justice, and what do we do? We turn our attention to Iraq. There is NO proven link between Al Qaeda and Saddam showing that Saddam had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.<<

Wrong. There is more than enough evidence proving various levels of state sponsorship of terror by Iraq. Read the 9/11 commission's report. If you haven't I have summarized the most salient points in my previous post. We have highly trained troops searching for Osama as we speak. Typical of Americans our short attention spans and instant gratification addiction don't always match up with reality.



>>Cheney, disingenously, won't let this point go.<<

Dick Cheney is simply being honest with the American people. I would question the judgement of anyone who reads the facts and DOESN'T see a connection. You think the Democrats don't see it? Their posturing is pure election year politics they can't afford to concede this issue to Bush.

>> If you, Steve or Anduril, have links to show an Iraq - Al Qaeda link, please share them with us.<<

Already did. Look at my previous posts. There are books on the subject. You can find Stephen Hayes "The Connection" at a bookstore near you.

>>The Iraq war has created tremendous anti-American sentiment in the world,<<

Only our enemies could possibly begrude us defending ourselves while being pro-active against terrorism. Let's face it America has a lot of enemies. Dennis Miller has it right when he says, "The United States right now is simultaneously the world's most loved, hated, feared and admired nation in the world."


>>5) The United States had no feasible plan for Iraq after removing Saddam. The removal of Saddam created a power vacuum in a country with little history of democracy. And we expected that they could peacefully set up a fully functional system of government where the disparate cultures all got along in harmony? That's the height of naivete.<<

I think the transfer of power has gone incredibly well. Besides, no amount of "planning" can account for all the possibilities. It should surprise no one that a country that has a Shiite majority has some strife when an oppressive Sunni dictator gets thrown out.

>>It's also naive to think that American companies are not benefitting in an Iraq without Saddam. The uncertainity in the region (along with troubles in Russia) has pushed the price of oil to record levels. This is a windfall to the oil companies.<<

The Bush administration has put forth a comprehensive energy bill, which aims to modernize conservation, increase our domestic energy supplies (including renewable energy), and increase our energy security. Although the president's energy bill passed the House of Representatives with the support of 46 Democrats, John Kerry, John Edwards, and the Democratic leadership have repeatedly used procedural hurdles to stymie the bill in the Senate.

If you want to blame high oil prices on someone, blame it on the Dems.

[Johann]

Maybe we can all agree on one thing: the world sucks.

[Johann]

Anduril- I "reasoned" innocent people dying was wrong.

That's the only fact I need to oppose this war.

Wars, oppression, religious and financial disputes- they have existed and will exist forever.

Get used to terrorism and get out your wallets. You and your grandchildren will be supporting it forever.
As long as we have war (and face it- we will forever) we'll be in fear, in debt and in a very real hell.

Your Good Book tells of heaven on earth. Where is it?
I won't see it in my lifetime and niether will you.

We will have turmoil and war and indescribable atrocities forever.
It's human nature.

Vive Life!

[anduril]

I "reasoned" too that innocent people are dying and given the options the most effective way to stop it was to bring down the man causing it, i.e., Saddam Hussein.

That's the only fact I need to support this war.

I know that war, oppression, religious and financial disputes will continue; and, incidentally, so does the Bible. It being human nature is one of the fundamental truths of a biblical worldview. "Heaven on earth" as described in the Bible is an eschatological reality not a present one. (Of course, it can be a present reality too to describe the life in Christ, quite apart from the strife of the world.)

In any case, why do you constantly refer to the Bible when writing to me? Every time you do, you only reveal to me your ignorance about it; and also your ignorance about what I believe about it.

[stevetseitz]

>>Anduril- I "reasoned" innocent people dying was wrong.

That's the only fact I need to oppose this war.<<

O.K. Johann time for a logic test:

If X= 10 innocent people dying and Y=40 innocent people dying

then...

X=must be preferable to Y. By your own standard, the fewer innocent people killed the better. Right?

It's a fact that in the 20th century war and all military conflicts have killed about 40,000,000.

It's also a fact that in the 20th century totalitarian regimes (read: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein) have killed at minimum 170,000,000 of their own citizens.

So as bad as war is, it's always preferable to a totalitarian regime from a human life standpoint.

Freedom is the way to save lives. Free countries don't start wars with each other and the wars that free countries fight in are primarily against totalitarian regimes.

Viva freedom.

[Johann]

If I don't employ the bible you tune out.

Good- we agree that we will live with wars forever.

Now you can go back to your thesis, Steve can go back to his homeland security job (helping on the homefront) and I can go back to my beer and Gangs of New York DVD.

[anduril]

If there is a cancer in your body, you don't just sit there and hope that by your inaction the cancer will slink away. No, you go into the body; you take the risk of being cut open; and, you remove the cancer because, you know, sooner or later, that cancer will kill you and better that you die on the operating table than wasting away an even more horrible and painful death. Everybody hates surgery but sometimes it's the better option. This is the analogy I see with Saddam. He was a cancer on Iraq and the world that needed to be removed.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
If I don't employ the bible you tune out.
If you use the Bible, I tune out because every time I see you do it, I want to roll my eyes.


Originally posted by Johann
Now you can go back to your thesis, Steve can go back to his homeland security job (helping on the homefront) and I can go back to my beer and Gangs of New York DVD.
Still others that want to talk this point and I will engage me... in fact, I've actually been done talking to you about it ever since I left the F9/11 threads. But, you just seem to want to come back at me all the time.

Incidentally, I'm almost done my thesis and will be moving to Pennsylvania by week's end.

[Johann]

The argument that you must take "the lesser of two evils" and "get rid of the cancer" is very noble, but in this case Saddam is a circumstantial cancer.

Why didn't the U.S. get rid of him in 1991 when they had the chance? This question is on a lot of people's minds.

There are many many atrocities going on under many regimes- if the U.S. is gonna "take out" Saddam, they had better tell us that he's only the first one.

The U.S. had better have a long list of terrorists that they're gonna take out of commission. If what you and Steve are saying is the absolute truth, then we can expect a constant, decades- long U.S. intervention on all nations behalf to "rid the world of these terrorist killers".

Somehow I seriously doubt that.

I seriously doubt that Bush has implemented a "war on terror" that will free us from terrorists from nations other than Iraq and Afganistan.


I still feel that Bush is after Iraq for oil and that Saddam was a perfect excuse. The innocent deaths resulted from this oily command decision has created my intensely emotional stance.

[anduril]

Johann: This is exactly what George Bush has proposed to do; a decades long intervention to fight the war on terrorism. Afghanistan and Iraq are only two places; U.S. troops/agents are also fighting in the Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, and other places where they actually have Government support to be there. There are also diplomatic and economic measures being taken throughout the war. This is multi-pronged assault on a very different type of enemy.

Why didn't the U.S. get rid of Saddam in '91? I'll tell you why... the government of the time listened to the advice of people like you and stopped the fighting. Americans saw the "road of death" out of Kuwait littered with the bodies of Iraq's Republican Guard and they lost their resolve. What's more, the mandate of the '91 war with Iraq was to repel the invasion of Kuwait... not, overthrow Saddam.

But, here's the better question: if it's been about oil and, if Moore is right, that this has everything to do with the Bush family businesses, why didn't Bush Sr. just invade Iraq and take over its oil supply when he had the chance in '91? It would have been a whole lot less messy then than now.

[Johann]

He was about to, I think.

But he was voted out of office. And we can only pray that the American people will do the same for his bastard son.

[anduril]

Oh, geez, Jason...

[pmw]

There's an interesting common ground that seems to be shared by everyone involved in the debate: The apparent want to minimize needless suffering and death of people around the world.

How that should be done seems to be a point of contention.

Interesting...

I'm also interested in how religion/lack of religion informs politics. I wonder what the percentages are in terms of Reps/Dems and religious affiliation. Perhaps someone has some #'s?

It's a nice debate to be having. I remind those involved to keep an eye on the value of a debate. Or perhaps I challenge those involved to comment on the value of a debate?
P

[anduril]

Personally, the value of the debate appears limited to me because no one that opposes the position Steve and I have taken has offered any evidence to back up their rhetoric. What's more, those people just recycle their rhetoric even though it has been repeatedly shown to be false. The only value then is what Steve and I have offered, i.e., considerable evidence, including links and references to primary source material, in support of the war in Iraq.

[Johann]

http://www.g-r-e-e-d.com/GREED.htm

[HorseradishTree]

Johann talked about this in another thread, but didn't post a link:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/index.php?id=16

[Johann]

www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/world_war_4.htm


Lots of awesome links...

[anduril]

Thank-you Jason for the link... but could you please contextualize this for me as I've done for you with most of the links I've provided... as far as I can tell from a quick browse of the article, it is only relevant to your argument in that you see Bush as a greedy bastard and this article talks about greed and tries to expose some of the inequalities in human existence. The link as it is doesn't prove anything as it regards this argument.

HorseradishTree: I've seen and gone through the line-by-line of F9/11 provided on Moore's website. Aside from the fact that it quickly exposes how poor his evidence in fact is (it's mostly a collection of media articles, many of which are even op-eds, rather than serious reports and investigations), none of Moore's "facts" disprove the case for war that Steve and I have made. What's more, the implications that Moore wants you to draw from the narrative that binds these "facts" together in F9/11 has been addressed and proved illogical by even Chris Knipp's articles on the movie.

Can't anyone lay out their position against the war in Iraq... as Steve and I have done with links to PRIMARY sources (not secondary ones).

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/world_war_4.htm


Lots of awesome links...
Okay, again, give me something that supports your case. This site has thousands of links, many are even sites that provide information in support of the war. This is like giving me a link to Google! Squat load of good that'll do.

[anduril]

Just to help you out a little... in order to prove that oil and greed are the issues... I need direct evidence from a primary resource of just how much money George Bush is earning from the war and how his invasion of Iraq has given him, personally, control of Iraq's oil. Once we have this, we will have established another possible reason for the war... you will then have to refute the evidence Steve and I gave. Steve and I have provided direct evidence from primary resources on the existence of links between al Qaeda/terrorism and Iraq; the humanitarian issues; and the existence of WMD.

[HorseradishTree]

The oil thing isn't my fight; it's Johann's. I want to take a pacifistic stance, as that's what I am, a pacifist, and just say that I believe this war was for political advantage, not the bringing-down of a ruthless dictator.

You're not going to find many primary sources. Politics won't allow it. There are too many officials who are scared to say anything, so all we can do is speculate on what we most have: secondary info. I'm sorry, but that's all I can give you. When the president says something like "This is the guy that tried to kill my dad," what does that do but give himself away. Revenge and reelection. I'm sorry for wasting your time if you wanted solid proof, but that's near impossible.

I really dislike my country's politics. I plan on remaining independent when I'm able to vote (and even though that means that I won't be able to vote in the primaries, it's a sacrifice I'm willing to give). I just don't like any politicians. The executive branch, no matter who's in the oval office, seems to think that they can bully around the other branches and unbalance the system that we have strove (sorry, I think that word's wrong) to create.

If you want better evidence of a case against Bush, I suggest the works of Al Franken. His latest book, Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, provides facts and evidence on several accounts of the lies that the current cabinet, as well as Fox News and others, have spread. Most everything you find there will be primary evidence.

I'll pointlessly blab more later. I'm sure I'll be stomped on and trounced in the next few hours, so just get it over with. I don't want to be anyone's enemy.

[pmw]

Horseradish, that is a noble stance that I can respect.

There seem to be few documents to support the very palpable sense that our president is not acting with respect for the international community but defying it. He has squandered our international reputation which is a very important part of our security and our ability to cohabitate with our neighbors.

There are few documents which say what I encounter wherever I go - that the international population does not like Bush, that they perceive him to be a bully with selective bones to pick and that he is firmly entrenched in a religious righteousness.

Facts, figures and an infinite number of opposing sources are not enough for me; they seem to prove any and every point. "The street" is perhaps more important to me, and it does not reflect well on Bush outside of this country (and only moderately well in this country). That's an important thing for me.
P

[JustaFied]

<Can't anyone lay out their position against the war in Iraq... as Steve and I have done with links to PRIMARY sources (not secondary ones).>

Sorry, I just don't have any primary sources right now. Maybe I'll find some later, maybe not. As far as secondary sources go, both the New York Times and the Washington Post have publicly gone into great depth in the last few months to criticize their own coverage of the Bush Administration's claims of WMD.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E7DC1E3EF933A05756C0A9629C8B 63&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fThe%20Public%20Editor
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58127-2004Aug11.html

Partly, they're claiming that stories they published ended up being factually incorrect, and partly they're claiming that stories that could be seen as challenging the Bush Administration's "reasons for war" were buried deep in the paper. And this was the pre-war coverage from the so-called "liberal media"? Read the articles, they give a pretty broad overview of the WMD fiasco.

As far as your "primary" source goes, Kay's report does NOT prove that Iraq had active WMD's. I see words like "documents", "equipment", "plans" and "designs". Bush's claim was that Saddam was currently in possession of WMD that posed an "imminent threat". It looks like such a threat did not exist.

Guys, I don't have an agenda here. I have an open mind. I realize that there are times in history where war becomes inevitible. But at the same time, war should be a last resort, and it appears to me that the Bush Administration rushed to war in Iraq when there was no imminent threat and other options were available to explore.

I hope that Iraq and Afganistan become stable, peaceful democracies that will be models for the rest of that part of the world. But, I can't possibly agree with you that "the transfer of power has gone incredibly well". It's not going well at all right now. There are bombings and dozens of casualties every week. Al Sadr is a huge thorn in their side right now, and there's no telling how that situation will end up. Again, I hope for the best.

<The threefold argument used by the Bush administration to justify the war in Iraq was that 1. Iraq had terror ties (again see previous post for details) 2. Iraq had WMD programs and 3. Iraq's human rights record was atrocious. >

No, initially the only reason, as stated in Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address, was the WMD that posed an imminent threat. After no actual WMD were found, they moved on to the next arguments. (Also, by the way, my complaint about Cheney's use of the "terror ties" is more specifically his insistence on a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attack itself).

<Those countries you mention aren't dealing directly with the terrorists who killed 3,000 people in New York City on Sept. 11th.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq was. >

Saddam Hussein was not directly involved with the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01. That's a bogus argument. Show me a link, not just to a passing Al Qaeda - Iraq connection but more specically to one relating Saddam to 9/11.

<The Bush administration has put forth a comprehensive energy bill, which aims to modernize conservation, increase our domestic energy supplies (including renewable energy), and increase our energy security. Although the president's energy bill passed the House of Representatives with the support of 46 Democrats, John Kerry, John Edwards, and the Democratic leadership have repeatedly used procedural hurdles to stymie the bill in the Senate. If you want to blame high oil prices on someone, blame it on the Dems.>

Getting off-topic here, how would their energy plan have lowered oil prices? That's a cheap shot and you know it. Bush and the Big 3 Detroit automakers have consistently fought higher gas mileage standards, which are easily within the means of modern technology. And, what in the world does it mean to "modernize conservation"?

One more thing, Steve: did you lose your interest in film? That would be a shame...

[anduril]

HorseradishTree: I respect the pacificist stance towards war but, if that's your position, the argument I submit you must make is that pacificism is more than an nice ideal; that is, it is workable to be pacificist in the face of cruel and tyrannical dictators.

Your argument that the war was undertaken for political advantage, however, is clearly not a sound one. How has this war given Bush a political advantage????

As for Bush's lies... I have no doubt that Bush has misspoken many times and no doubt lied even. This is certainly nothing extraordinary for a human being, let alone a politician or President.

As for the American system in general... it is imperfect... every system is... but the vitriolic competition between the branches is exactly what preserves the balance between them... this is what makes America's systems so great... they are highly pragmatic and seem to take into account how human nature works. I submit the founders perfectly understood this and that's why they created so many branches of Government.

[Johann]

I've been criticized very harshly for my emotions but as Tree pointed out (thanks) we "on the left" don't have any primary sources.

We can only be indignant. We can only shout our "gut feelings".

The "man on the street" (which is most of us) is getting the strong impression that this whole war was/is bogus and Bush isn't making giant strides in quelling those suspicions.

He said on CNN the other day that he sat in that schoolroom for 7 minutes because he didn't want to scare the children.
For fucks sakes, the kids would have coped if he slinked out of the room like he slinked into office- Bush is good at escape and evasion tactics.

As for my links, they are reminders of Bush. That's all. They reflect the man. It's not an argument- it's a bolster.
Sorry if they aren't primary enough for you.

A quick browse? I strongly suggest you read it. That article explains much of the world we live in and Bush's mindset.
He's one greedy, rich man and that article is reflecting his capitalist ideals.

I know your position, anduril- I want to support our leaders too.
We can't. Because they lie, cheat and steal- for their own interests, careers and bank statements.

Your championing of the pragmatic systems of the U.S. government contradicts what you told HorseradishTree!

You tell him in one breath that pacifism is not workable yet you say there is balance in the "branches".

Make up your mind- do we pick a party of our own free will or do we support the Nazi's who currently run the show simply because dictators are threatening us?

There are many issues, many sides, & Bush's dictatorship- and he really wants one- he said it himself! is harming the American Way.

You haven't responded to the very salient points about Bush causing the world to hate the US. Like Justafied, I want to see tangible, undeniable proof that Saddam and Al-Queda are/were in cahoots. As Steve said: "waiting...."

Precisely because the Bush Administration has deceived, lied and withheld information, we do not have ANY primary sources on the real reasons for this war.
We suspect oil and revenge. We emotionally, passionately feel that the war was not"absolutely necessary", nor do we feel one bit safer since 9/11. Quite the contrary. I feel quite angry that Bush ignored the terrorist threats and there most certainly is primary proof of that: Tree posted Moore's line-by-line fact clarification which explains quite plainly that John Ashcroft said "I don't want to hear about any more terror threats" and the memos which said "Bin Laden to attack the United States" (and even that planes would be hijacked) were completely ignored.

And then Bush declares a "war on terror". Hmmm.
He ignores warnings of terror and when terrorists strike, he declares a war on them. Why didn't you declare a war BEFORE 9/11, George?

Cuz you were relaxing on your dude ranch.

Well dude, where's your accountability?

[Johann]

And please call me Johann, anduril- he gives me strength to have the courage of my convictions.

I'll address you as Aragorn's sword, you address me as Johannes dos Matteeses dune Filmus.

OK? I won't call you Ken Ristau here anymore...

[anduril]

Well, I never did use your last name, Jason Shier, until just now of course ... but if you want Johann, I'll try to watch myself. I apologize.


Your championing of the pragmatic systems of the U.S. government contradicts what you told HorseradishTree!

You tell him in one breath that pacifism is not workable yet you say there is balance in the "branches".

Make up your mind- do we pick a party of our own free will or do we support the Nazi's who currently run the show simply because dictators are threatening us?
I'm not sure I understand the contradiction... please explain. How does asking HorseradishTree to demonstrate pacificism as workable and my defense of the balance of the U.S. branches contradict? And, how does this relate to elections?

Obviously, I don't share your view that the Republicans are Nazis and I do believe that democracy exists in North America and the electorate have the freedom to choose their candidates.


You haven't responded to the very salient points about Bush causing the world to hate the US.
What's to respond to? Do I tell the unpopular kid in school who chooses not to party with the bad kids that its time for him to make bad and improve his popularity?

Also, I hate to break it to the Americans... the Americans have never been well liked as a people. Pre-9/11 I remember having many conversations with fellow Canadians about how important it was to identify yourself overseas as Canadian and not American. The world has always had a love-hate relationship with the U.S. and that hasn't really changed that much because of Iraq; and, I know having travelled in Europe pre- and post-Iraq war. The world is just perhaps a bit more vocal now that some Americans are joining in on the anti-US bandwagon and the American people are just becoming a little more cognizant of what others think of them; they used to not care.

Oh, BTW, the French haven't liked the U.S. ever since they decided to start getting along with the British way back around WWI; so what?

But, y'know, conversely the U.S. relationship with the British, the Australians, and former Eastern Bloc countries is actually the best it has probably ever been.

[anduril]

Originally posted by pmw
Facts, figures and an infinite number of opposing sources are not enough for me; they seem to prove any and every point. "The street" is perhaps more important to me, and it does not reflect well on Bush outside of this country (and only moderately well in this country). That's an important thing for me.
P
I'll remember to teach my kid that important lesson... only do what's popular with others because that's the right thing to do... huh?!?!?

[pmw]

Originally posted by anduril

I'll remember to teach my kid that important lesson... only do what's popular with others because that's the right thing to do... huh?!?!?

No, don't teach your kids that. You would be doing them a disservice and all because you misread me. As I said, facts and figures are not enough (especially when our sources are dubiously slanted one way or the other). "The street" is an important factor, and given the access the president has to the American public's eyes and ears, the fact that the street expresses grave concerns is a very compelling indication that he's alienated a large percentage of the American population. As a source, it's an important factor to take into consideration.

P

[anduril]

Originally posted by pmw
No, don't teach your kids that. You would be doing them a disservice and all because you misread me. As I said, facts and figures are not enough (especially when our sources are dubiously slanted one way or the other). "The street" is an important factor, and given the access the president has to the American public's eyes and ears, the fact that the street expresses grave concerns is a very compelling indication that he's alienated a large percentage of the American population. That's an important factor.
America was deeply bi-partisan before 9/11; GWII hasn't really changed anything in this respect, except perhaps focused the bi-partisanship on certain particular issues.

[pmw]

Originally posted by anduril

America was deeply bi-partisan before 9/11; GWII hasn't really changed anything in this respect, except perhaps focused the bi-partisanship on certain particular issues.

True, and in my first posting about this, I mention specifically a loss of support in the international community in reference to "the street." This is a big loss for Americans and one that did not exist before GBII. We have an obligation to work with the world, and this administration has worked against it continuously.

In any case, I think JustaFied makes some very salient points which I hope you'll address as well (I know there are a lot of posts to respond to).

Im out for the rest of the night.
P

[anduril]

Originally posted by pmw
True, and in my first posting about this, I mention specifically a loss of support in the international community in reference to "the street." This is a big loss for Americans and one that did not exist before GBII. We have an obligation to work with the world, and this administration has worked against it continuously.
I commented on the international scene in my response to Johann a couple posts back. I disagree with you. It did exist before; Americans just weren't really aware of it. Old Europe and most of the Middle East has resented America for a very long time. With respect to Old Europe, I speak as someone who has travelled there several times, has family who are first-generation immigrants to North America and still have ties to the old country, and as someone who tries to keep up with news in Europe. There is no real change there; perhaps, the only real difference is that the Iraq War has given them a particular issue on which to vent frustrations that have existed for a very long time.

As for the Middle East, I think you'll see attitudes change as Iraq and Afghanistan become full-fledged democracies and begin to recover from the centuries long oppression they have suffered--a process that will no doubt take at least 10-15 years (as any student of history can attest). But, the real thorn in the Middle East is the Palestine/Israel question... and who knows when this will be resolved.

By contrast, New Europe, Australia, and Britain are now closer than ever... at least, from a political standpoint. Support on the street in these countries is not always strong... but the lack of support hasn't really translated into anti-American sentiment, except perhaps in some parts of Britain.

Also, it is my sense that anti-American sentiment in many countries has subsided considerably in just the last year. It is paltable even here in Canada.

Originally posted by pmw
In any case, I think JustaFied makes some very salient points which I hope you'll address as well (I know there are a lot of posts to respond to).
I tried to address several points and will try to get back at the rest but I also want to leave some room for Steve and any others to get involved... I wouldn't want to dominate the discussion... ;-)

[anduril]

Originally posted by JustaFied
Sorry, I just don't have any primary sources right now. Maybe I'll find some later, maybe not. As far as secondary sources go, both the New York Times and the Washington Post have publicly gone into great depth in the last few months to criticize their own coverage of the Bush Administration's claims of WMD.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E7DC1E3EF933A05756C0A9629C8B 63&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fThe%20Public%20Editor
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58127-2004Aug11.html

Partly, they're claiming that stories they published ended up being factually incorrect, and partly they're claiming that stories that could be seen as challenging the Bush Administration's "reasons for war" were buried deep in the paper. And this was the pre-war coverage from the so-called "liberal media"? Read the articles, they give a pretty broad overview of the WMD fiasco.

As far as your "primary" source goes, Kay's report does NOT prove that Iraq had active WMD's. I see words like "documents", "equipment", "plans" and "designs". Bush's claim was that Saddam was currently in possession of WMD that posed an "imminent threat". It looks like such a threat did not exist.

I'm not much of a fan of the media (though admittedly I watch lots of it), and hence I don't like when the media is used of evidence of this or that. To be frank, many journalists are the most under-educated people out there to claim the title "professional." Think about it... a community college degree can get you a job with the NY Times; and even then you can even bullshit your headlines and stories because there are no standards (such as in the academic world) and minimal oversight.

In any case, to your real point by bringing these up... there was alot of spin before the war. It is undeniable that there was also mistaken intelligence put forward by not only the CIA but the intelligence services of nearly every major country in the free world. The expectation was there that Saddam was even going to use WMD and to this end some of the intelligence has proven incorrect. However, this is neither surprising nor so "outrageous" as people alleged. Certainly, one would hope for more accuracy but intelligence is an art not a science and mistakes can be made. Governments worldwide have investigated the errors and in each case have made important suggestions for improvements while at the same recognizing that the intelligence wasn't wholly bad. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater by getting your facts from those unreliable media.

The basic assertions have been verified. Saddam had WMD, failed to report it, and was actively seeking to increase his capacity. Read the CIA report (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm), to see what was actually claimed before the war, and then compare it to Kay's and Duelfer's reports. You'll notice, e.g., that many of the CW and BW agents that the CIA report expresses concern about have been uncovered by Kay and Duelfer. The mobile labs that Powell mentioned in his U.N. speech: Found (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraqi_mobile_plants/index.html)! Enriched uranium (http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?PUBLIC_ID=16141&BT_CODE=PR_PRESSRELEASES&TT_CODE=PRESSRELEASE) was found in the country and transported out. Also recently, a dirty bomb turned up as a part of a terrorist attack in Iraq and the Polish contingent found seventeen longer-range missiles with WMD warheads. Given this relative trickle, I would actually expect that more will be revealed when Duelfer finishes his report. Also, it remains entirely plausible that WMD were transported to Syria, Iraq's Baathist neighbour, in the long run-up to the conflict.



Originally posted by JustaFied
No, initially the only reason, as stated in Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address, was the WMD that posed an imminent threat. After no actual WMD were found, they moved on to the next arguments. (Also, by the way, my complaint about Cheney's use of the "terror ties" is more specifically his insistence on a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attack itself).
Actually, you are wrong JustaFied. The first reason given by Bush was regime change, well before the 2003 State of the Union. The Bush administration increasingly stressed WMD as it committed itself to pursuing the case through the U.N. and pre-existing resolutions against Iraq. But, more than that, even in the State of Union, Bush calls attention to the terrorist links and the human rights issues. It was always, as Steve mentions, a three-pronged justification.

The rest of your email I'll leave to Steve.

[HorseradishTree]

Originally posted by Johann

I'll address you as Aragorn's sword, you address me as Johannes dos Matteeses dune Filmus.


Oooh, can I be "El Arbol de Grooviness?" Ah, give me a day and I'll find the Latin translation of my alias. I'm taking my third course in it this year, and I find it to be the most beautiful language ever created.

Ok, where were we? Oh, right, war and stuff.


Originally posted by anduril
the argument I submit you must make is that pacificism is more than an nice ideal; that is, it is workable to be pacificist in the face of cruel and tyrannical dictators.

Gandhi saved an entire nation simply by not eating. Well, okay, there's more to it than that, but his passive resistance tactics did indeed service the strive for perpetual continuation of peace.

By making an unbridled attack on another nation, we kind of screwed the pooch with everybody. I believe it to be an excellent regulation to have to get permission from the UN to go to war. But by ignoring that rule, the hawks seem to have shown their true form.

War and violence should be an ultimate resort, and it shouldn't even have to come to that. Did we try everything we could before forcibly removing Saddam from office? I don't think so. And as a result, Spain had its own 9/11, hundreds of Americans have died, and the whole world's looking at us with disgust.

Casting aside casualties of war as honorable deaths for a greater cause is barbaric. No one should have to die to achieve an ultimate goal for the greater good.

[anduril]

It's a good start HorseradishTree but I need more than Ghandi. Ghandi was certainly an amazing figure but his non-violent approach worked because the country against which he directed his challenge had a consitution, a rule of law, and, in this respect, was not tyrannical (even as it may have been colonial and at times brutal). Ghandi had many vocal supporters in Britain who helped his cause, including among them (at least for a time) Winston Churchill, who spoke out in a very famous speech against the Amritsar Massacre. Also, Britain was not in a state of war with Ghandi; they simply ruled India. So, Ghandi could take some comfort in that he wasn't going to get pulled away in the middle of the night by the secret service or shot simply for expressing his political dissatisfaction (the Amritsar Massacre notwithstanding)...

What I need is some examples of civil disobedience and pacificism working against a totalitarian regime...

[anduril]

Originally posted by HorseradishTree
Casting aside casualties of war as honorable deaths for a greater cause is barbaric. No one should have to die to achieve an ultimate goal for the greater good.
So, the British civilians who died from Nazi bombing raids didn't die honorably in their commitment to oppose Hitler. Tell me, how exactly would pacificism have stopped Hitler? Do you think a Jew refusing to eat would have stopped the Holocaust? Do you think a Pole advocating a boycott of German goods who have prevented the 1939 invasion of his country and systematic extermination of many of his countrymen? How successful was Belgian neutrality in preventing the invasion of their country?

Now, tell me, do you think a non-violent protester would have prevented the gassing at Halabja? Or, how about a Kuwaiti standing in the front of the tanks that rolled into his country? Should we have continued the policy of appeasement and containment and lifted the sanctions against Iraq (as many advocated pre-9/11)? Isn't twelve years of embargoes, sanctions, no-fly zones, and military presence doing everything we can to find a peaceful solution? Saddam was funnelling billions off the Oil-for-Food; he was re-arming. Do you think he was doing this just to assert the sovereignty of his own country with a goal of living in peace with his own people and his own neighbours? Do you think if we gave him another ten years he would have complied with U.N. demands he had failed to meet for the previous twelve? Don't you think his army would have grown in that time? How about his WMD capacity--would it have shrunk or grown?? Wouldn't another ten years have only harmed the Iraqi people that much more and made the inevitable invasion that much more bloody?

Do you think the pacificists who died on 9/11--and there must have been at least one--weigh on the mind of Osama Bin Laden?

[stevetseitz]

>>Why didn't the U.S. get rid of him in 1991 when they had the chance? This question is on a lot of people's minds.<<

Ummmmm, maybe because the Democrats in Congress wouldn't have gone for it? Hell, we had to bribe Al Gore with national TV time just to get him to support the liberation of Kuwait. The fact that you can point to a history with Iraq and that our challenges with Saddam date back several decades should tell you right there that THERE WAS NO "RUSH" TO WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>There are many many atrocities going on under many regimes- if the U.S. is gonna "take out" Saddam, they had better tell us that he's only the first one.<<

Oh...so now you are a hawk? You suggest that the precedent set for regime change was Saddam's regime? I often wonder if we should bother with the U.N. red-tape and security council resolutions, sanctions, inspections, and "oil for food" programs at all. We gave Saddam a hell of a lot of leeway. You know me, I'm all about saving lives and anytime the choice is between a totalitarian regime that supports terrorism and war it would be war ANYTIME.

>>The U.S. had better have a long list of terrorists that they're gonna take out of commission. If what you and Steve are saying is the absolute truth, then we can expect a constant, decades- long U.S. intervention on all nations behalf to "rid the world of these terrorist killers".<<

How ever long it takes.

Somehow I seriously doubt that.

>>I seriously doubt that Bush has implemented a "war on terror" that will free us from terrorists from nations other than Iraq and Afganistan.<<

Why? Iraq was a state sponsor of al-Qaeda, large enough to provide arms, training, refuge, intelligence and financing. Afghanistan was al-Qaeda's home base. Why the hell WOULDN'T we make the first major battles in the War on Terror those two nations?


>>I still feel that Bush is after Iraq for oil and that Saddam was a perfect excuse. The innocent deaths resulted from this oily command decision has created my intensely emotional stance.<<

Feelings are temporary. Emotions are decidedly irrational. Facts do not change with our moods. Reason and intellect provide us with the ability to make choices based on principle.

[Johann]

Several decades?

No way, Jose- the U.S. had a nice relationship with Saddam and provided him with lots of toys only a short time ago...
You know it, Steve- your provocations are getting mighty tiresome.

A hawk? What does that mean? Please explain.

e-mail me when Bush has rid the earth of terrorists, Steve.
I need closure.


Great to know your ready for war when the need arises, btw.
What's your source for the "state sponsoring" of Al-Queda?

Be very specific.

There ain't nothing irrational about my emotions. I don't spontaneously erupt at the drop of a hat.

I speak with conviction about my emotions. Why would I waste my time? I'm dead serious about needless death and my indignance about it's cause.

Keep mocking- I'll keep calling you a blind fool.

[Johann]

anduril seems to think that pacifism involves standing by and letting atrocities happen without blinking an eye.

Hardly.

You flap your gums about "doing nothing is worse than fighting evil doers". Well, muchacho, some people think that you fuel the flames of evil if you engage these "terrorists".

And the situation in Iraq right now proves that "adage" with aplomb- there is a lot of escalating tension and hatred for the U.S. that increases every damn second.

And it was all avoidable. A damn shame.

Yeah, Saddam was a horrific dictator. We get it.
Stop using that excuse.

I love how Steve said if I had my way Saddam would still be in power. Now who's a mind-reader? Saddam is/was evil. But his removal could have been executed in a myriad of different ways. But Dubya felt killing innocents and ignoring the Geneva Convention was the best way. Fuck him and his Imperialist, Nazi Rules.

The cowboy president said "a dictatorship would be easier" in refering to his role as president. Nice.
Those words actually came out of his mouth- fact.
Deny that one anduril- I'll be happy to give you plenty of primary sources confirming he said it.

Funny how Bush wants a dictaorship himself and wages war with one. Now who's a hypocrite?

Anduril- those people who died in previous wars were heroic- nobody profited financially from their deaths daily, nor did their leaders send them into harm's way without exploring all the options. And there was a SERIOUS threat from Hitler and co.
Saddam was not a serious threat- only to his own people. I've said it before- the U.S. is not a schoolmarm. They are not the World Police. And if they are, if they are taking that responsibility, don't go half-assed about it. Don't send 11,000 troops to Afganistan and give Osama a 2 month head-start. 11,000 troops? As Moore pointed out, there are more cops in Manhattan than there are soldiers in Afhganistan. Yeah, those terrorists sure are on the run!

In fahrenheit, there's a clip of Colin Powell telling the camera (back in 2000?) that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction and that he's of absolutely no threat to the United States.

Hmmm. So in a scant 2 years Saddam became an imminent threat? So in a very short time Saddam was again an enemy who's gonna harm us?

Weird. Explain that one, anduril.

waiting...

and I'm also waiting for concrete proof that Al-queda and Saddam were bed-buddies.

[anduril]

You've just recycled arguments I've answered before; I'm not interested in going at them again. If you don't agree, if you've thrown in the towel, fine. I have no expectation that I'll reason you out of your position because, as you yourself have admitted and I've explained before, you didn't reason yourself into it the first place. If I shared your conviction that George W. Bush was Hitler and the Republicans the Nazis than I would oppose them too and I would be just as appalled as you are that someone would suggest Bush is possibly a good guy; thing is, I don't share your conviction. In fact, I think it is pure nonsense. But, as long as you're there, it is rather pointless for me to try to reason with you.

[Johann]

You don't reason- you defend your stance with info approved by Bush.

I reason innocent deaths is wrong and could have been avoided.
Can you deny that?
No, you can't.
How many people have died over there, anduril- forget about Saddam for one fucking second- 30, 000+ and counting?

This war is a mini-vietnam and Bush is Nixon.

You've refuted nothing- and neither has Steve. You both stand behind your government-approved "primary sources" while attacking me for lack of facts.

The lack of facts is Bush's fault- I can't provide facts when the government lies!

I can't accurately debate you because I'm faced with corrupt info!

Now who's thrown in the towel?

Nice way to avoid all of my salient points.
Bravo.

Look at my last post. I PLEAD with you to respond to it.
I WANT to be wrong here- make me wrong anduril- look at each thing I typed and respond intelligently, astutely.

If you don't, then I assume the correct perspective on this war and Bush.

[stevetseitz]

>>Several decades?

No way, Jose- the U.S. had a nice relationship with Saddam and provided him with lots of toys only a short time ago...
You know it, Steve- your provocations are getting mighty tiresome.<<

Read a history book. Like I said, Saddam Hussein was a Baathist. This is basically an Islamic Marxist. Iraq was a Soviet satellite in the late 70's early 80's. When Carter failed to back the Shah of Iran, our only quasi-ally disappeared and our influence in the crucial region was reduced to nothing. The U.S. saw Saddam as a potential ally in that he was supposedly a "secular" leader. The influence of Islam in the region was gravely underestimated by all involved. Saddam became "born again" note his fiery religious rhetoric in his speeches to the Iraqi people prior to the war. Saddam may have been "secular" by an Islamic extremist standard, but he was not "secular" by any western measure.


>>A hawk? What does that mean? Please explain.<<

First you say that nothing warranted a war in Iraq and then, when confronted with the facts about Saddam's regime, you attack the Bush administration for not going after similarly brutal regimes! You are pulling a Noam Chomsky, blaming all problems of the world on either American intervention or the lack thereof.


>>What's your source for the "state sponsoring" of Al-Queda?

Be very specific.<<

1985: The mastermind behind the hijacking of the
Achille Lauro cruise ship, Abu Abbas, was harbored and
welcomed by the Iraqi regime.

1988: More than 5,000 Kurdish men, women and children
are massacred in the village of Halabja by Saddam
Hussein’s forces using weapons of mass destruction.

1992: Iraqi intelligence documents list Osama Bin
Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset.

1993: A non aggression pact between Iraq and al-Qaeda
is formed. The rift between secular and Islamic
extremists in the Middle East has all but disappeared.

1994: Deputy Director of Iraqi intelligence confirms
that Osama Bin Laden requested arms and training from
Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime.

1995: Abu Hajer al Iraqi, a senior al-Qaeda leader,
met with Iraqi intelligence officials.

1996: A phone call between al-Qaeda-supported Sudanese
military officials and the head of Iraq’s chemical
weapons program was intercepted by the NSA.

1997:Abu Abdallah al Iraqi, a member of al-Qaeda, went
to Iraq to help in obtaining weapons of mass
destruction.

1998: The Clinton administration’s justice department
indicted Iraq for providing “assistance” to al-Qaeda’s
weapons development program.

1999: A senior Clinton administration counter
terrorism official said that the U.S. government was
“sure” Iraq had supported al-Qaeda chemical weapons
programs in the Sudan.

1999-2000: September 11th hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar
was photographed with an Iraqi intelligence agent in
Kuala Lumpur en route to a meeting at which the
terrorist attacks of the USS Cole and the World Trade
Center were planned and discussed.

2001: Satellite images show al-Qaeda members traveling
to a compound in Iraq, a compound financed in part, by
the Iraqi regime.

September 11th, 2001: The World Trade Centers in
Manhattan, in the heart of New York City become ground
zero for the worst terror attacks in American history.
Attacks were carried out by members of al-Qaeda.

2002: Senior al Qaeda member, Abu Musab al Zarqawi,
operated openly in Baghdad and received medical
attention with the knowledge and approval of Saddam
Hussein’s regime in Iraq.

2003: Prior to the war in Iraq, it was suspected that
Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq harbored and supported
Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi weapons expert who mixed
the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attack.
This was confirmed in documents found in postwar Iraq.

Specific enough for you?



>>I speak with conviction about my emotions. Why would I waste my time? I'm dead serious about needless death and my indignance about it's cause.<<

But you apparently don't mind "needless death" when it's at the hands of a totalitarian regime. Where is the emotion and conviction about THOSE deaths?

You seem hell bent on protecting innocent lives when it comes to war, but you are unwilling to protect innocent lives from their own government.

The facts don't lie. War and military conflict killed just under 40,000,000 in the 20th century. Governments killed well over 170,000,000 maybe as many as 300,000,000 people.

Where is your passion for saving THOSE lives? Is a violent death at the hands of a totalitarian regime somehow better than a violent death on the battlefield?? It's ludicrous. Or... is this really an issue about the resentment about being bailed out by by America yet again?

[Johann]

"The U.S. saw Saddam as a potential ally" in the late 70's/ early 80's- that's 25 years ago. Hardly "several decades".

What does your comments about being born again have anything to do with what were discussing? I don't give a shit about Saddam's religion.

I'm gonna shred your reply- give me a day to craft something.

I'm not gonna lip off right away. I want to do it right.
Have patience, Steve- I'm gonna gather some intelligence.

Want a beer while you wait?

[Johann]

I want specific sources- not a list of handy examples.

I want what you want steve- paper trails.



point 1 -what do you mean "harbored and welcomed by the Iraqi regime"? Did Saddam invite him into his castle for tea and then train him to hijack the ship? Or are they simply "friends"? Explain what you mean here!

point 2- what does that have to do with Al-Queda? Saddam did it!

point 3-Osama may be an asset, but did they actually chat with him? Did they actually discuss intelligence with the big bad Saudi?
give me proof- give me a "paper trail"- you work for Homeland Security, it shouldn't be too difficult.

point 4- a "non-agression pact" was formed. Great! Now what the fuck is a non-agression pact? Is it a "you-don't-fight-me, I-don't-fight-you" agreement? So fucking what? So they agree not to fight each other. So have the U.S. and Israel. "Allies", Steve, "Allies".

point 5- OK, Osama requested arms and training. Did he get it?
Please elaborate on these points, Steve- I'm dying to know more.

point 6- so an Al-Queda guy met with an Iraqi guy. Small world! I also love how his name is "Iraqi" and he MET with an Iraqi.

point 7- I love this one- a phone call was intercepted between someone who KNOWS al-queda (not anybody IN Al-Queda) and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program. Do tell what they discussed Steve.
Only 1 phone call? How long was it? Did he get all the terrorism info he needed with just one ring?

point 8- Whoa nellie! What a specific piece of info you give!
Did the guy bring a shopping cart? Help me out- this point is so fucking foggy & vague I need a 10,000 kilowatt bulb to see it. Again- another guy named "Iraqi" who goes to Iraq! Who knew?

point 9- what was that "assistance", Steve? Please, for the love of Mary Poppins, give me specifics.

point 10- Good to know the boys in the headshed are "sure". Wouldn't wanna confirm it or anything...

point 11- Were you there? Can you confirm this?

point 12- Satellite images? Great Godfrey! Do those pictures show what the members look like? Could they not just be planning a kegger weekend in Iraq? Could they not just be cruising for chicks in the Holy Land?

point 13- I thank you profusely for this nugget of information.
I was soooooooo in the dark on that one- you da man!
But I have to ask- what does that have to do with Saddam?

point 14- So Zarqawi had a boo-boo. Saddam gave him a band-aid. BIG FUCKING DEAL.

You know what you've proven here, Steve? That Al-Queda and Iraq mutally hate the United States. We knew that already. Years ago. It's not impossible to visualise two opponents of the western world conspiring from time to time.

You're linking sparse intelligence with justification of war.
The United States should have had better, more concrete intelligence than what I've just debunked.

You need way more keen info to start a war.

Thank you for comparing me to Noam Chomsky. I happen to believe he's one helluva rational man.

[Brice]

Wow,
This is one riviting Lounge. But is there really going to be an
end to this debate.
Steve... what is it that you don't understand, want to believe
or for the love of GOD can't comprehend about this war?

Your Posts are irrational and getting to the point where I think
you might want to raise your chocolate ration from 4 to 3.

This is more about wanting to debate Johan for the sake of
just debating him. Here is something that I think is valid. When
you're arguing something, here is a tip: Have a Clue.

I am sorry if I am breaking some of the Forum rules but this
is like beating a dead cat over the head.

Brice

[pmw]

Yes, fairly circular and seemingly without end... but then again, it's a polarized debate. It's probably a pretty good reflection of the American public opinion. Two sides, unwilling to budge. Valuable in atleast that sense...

Again I'll restate the common ground here - opinions tend to stem (albeit in wholly different directions) from the idea that bad is bad... There it is in a nutshell. The jury is in.

Is this the end?

[Brice]

What could it mean to bring this discussion (if one can call it that)
to the end?

You are right by saying both sides think that BAD is BAD, but
really I think that one side of this arguement has been tainted
by (albeit Christian taint) the fact that the media has tried to
play only one side. The Bush Side.

If it wasn't for Moore and his antaganistic ways then we might
still be writing debates on where the WMD might be.

The paper trail that everyone is looking for probably doesn't
exist to the extent thats each side would require to prove
the other side wrong.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Brice
Your Posts are irrational and getting to the point where I think
you might want to raise your chocolate ration from 4 to 3.

This is more about wanting to debate Johan for the sake of
just debating him. Here is something that I think is valid. When
you're arguing something, here is a tip: Have a Clue.
Steve's posts are anything but irrational Brice. He has patiently repeated the evidence over and again. He is using dates, names, facts, etc. to support his position. Whereas the posts by Johann and now you are completely lacking in this regard.

[anduril]

Is it just me or does Johann, Brice, Michael Moore, and the left sound an awful lot like Osama Bin Laden:

"When you look at what happened and is happening, the killing in our countries and in yours, an important fact emerges, and that is that the oppression is forced on both us and you by your politicians who send your sons, against your will, to our country to kill and to be killed.

"Therefore, both sides have an interest in thwarting those who shed the blood of the peoples for their own narrow interests, out of vassalage to the White House gang…

"This war makes millions of dollars for big corporations, either weapons manufacturers or those working in the reconstruction [of Iraq], such as Halliburton and its sister companies…

"It is crystal clear who benefits from igniting the fire of this war and this bloodshed: They are the merchants of war, the bloodsuckers who run the policy of the world from behind the scenes.

"President Bush and his ilk, the media giants, and the U.N. … all are a fatal danger to the world, and the Zionist lobby is their most dangerous member. Allah willing, we will persist in fighting them…

[Excerpts from a speech given by Osama Bin Laden and broadcast on Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiyya TV, April 15, 2004.]

I find it interesting that you choose to side with those who would take your life. Perhaps, Johann, it is time for you to put up... go join al-Qaeda. Evidently, you agree with them. Personally, I will continue to defend the United States and Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. I firmly believe that the facts support that decision, in spite of some mistakes and misjudgments. I've put those facts forward... this is all I can do.

[stevetseitz]

Johann says >>Be very specific.<<

I provide names, dates, events and locations, for example:

1985: The mastermind behind the hijacking of the
Achille Lauro cruise ship, Abu Abbas, was harbored and
welcomed by the Iraqi regime.


Duh, it's an example of the Iraqi regime supporting a known terrorist.

I posted also that in 1988, more than 5,000 Kurdish men, women and children are massacred in the village of Halabja by Saddam
Hussein’s forces using weapons of mass destruction.

Johann wails "It was Saddam not al-Qaeda!!

Connect the dots. The Bush administration pointed to Iraq's history to attempt to determine a possible future. If Iraq had no qualms about using chemical weapons in the past, and they are working with al-Qaeda, one of the most dangerous terrorist organizations in the world, they could provide such weapons to the terrorists.

>>What do you mean "harbored and welcomed by the Iraqi regime"? Did Saddam invite him into his castle for tea and then train him to hijack the ship? Or are they simply "friends"? Explain what you mean here!<<

What do you THINK it means? Have you ever travelled abroad? Do you know what a pain in the butt it is even for regular citizens to travel and come and go internationally? Now imagine being a international criminal. For Saddam to open his borders and allow to operated known terrorists is clear state-sponsorship. You CAN'T BE THIS DENSE!!!

>>Osama may be an asset, but did they actually chat with him? Did they actually discuss intelligence with the big bad Saudi?
give me proof- give me a "paper trail"- you work for Homeland Security, it shouldn't be too difficult.<<

This is declassified information and part of the stuff the 9/11 panel and Senate intelligence committee saw. Now take into account the intelligence that the C.I.A., the F.B.I., the N.S.A. the President, and his cabinet is privy to. This is top secret or better information that cannot be divulged because of the risk to highly placed agents in the field.


Johan is confused: >>a "non-agression pact" was formed. Great! Now what the fuck is a non-agression pact? Is it a "you-don't-fight-me, I-don't-fight-you" agreement? So fucking what? So they agree not to fight each other. So have the U.S. and Israel. "Allies", Steve, "Allies".<<

HELLO? This signifies a HUGE change in the relationship between the Islamic extremist Bin Laden and the "secular" Sunni Baathist Saddam Hussein. You still with me here? Before this, Saddam was still considered an infidel in the eyes of of many Islamic extremist terrorists. Amazing what state sponsorship will do to a guys attitude.

>>OK, Osama requested arms and training. Did he get it?
Please elaborate on these points, Steve- I'm dying to know more.<<

According to some intelligence sources, yes. al-Qaeda operatives were trained in Iraq, perhaps at Salman Pak: A terrorist training camp that contains a Boeing fuselage as well as seperate barracks for devout Muslims (like al-Qaeda). Obviously, this would have been kept secret even from most high level ISS. Even still, in post-war Iraq many high level Iraqi officials have confirmed it.

>>so an Al-Queda guy met with an Iraqi guy. Small world! I also love how his name is "Iraqi" and he MET with an Iraqi.<<

You are grasping at straws now, TRYING desperately to pretend their is no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The irony is that you CAN'T admit the connection. If you do your entire philosophy collapses like a house of cards. It's almost a bulletproof pychosis with the left.

There are simply too many coincidences for a reasonable, objective person to conclude, that Saddam's regime was not a state sponsor of terror. Your idols Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and many other democrats said so themselves in the 1990's. They just didn't DO anything about it.


Now, Johann knows he's in for it so he gets cute:

>>a phone call was intercepted between someone who KNOWS al-queda (not anybody IN Al-Queda) and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program. Do tell what they discussed Steve.
Only 1 phone call? How long was it? Did he get all the terrorism info he needed with just one ring?<<

That the NSA was able to intercept a call between two groups that most certainly would have preferred to remain anoymous says a lot. The fact that the call was intercepted shows that communication between the Sudan where many al-Qaeda were based and Iraq was taking place.

>>Good to know the boys in the headshed are "sure". Wouldn't wanna confirm it or anything...<<

Yeah, you know who the counter-terrorism official was sherlock?

Richard Clarke. Yes, that Richard Clarke, the man who later said "No evidence of a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda exists." The man whom Micheal Moore quotes incessantly. Clarke didn't deny the veracity of the information which would have been at least in the REALM of possibility. He (laughably) denied the very EXISTENCE of the information. Yes, this man said the information which has since been declassified and we are discussing DIDN'T EXIST. The sheer audacity boggles the mind.

>>Were you there? Can you confirm this?<<

Yeah, I took the picture.....Give me a break. This is so typical of the left. You can't handle the facts, so you constantly demand further proof. How much is enough proof? The answer is that you would deny any and all such information because it renders your entire philosophy completely impotent.

>>Satellite images? Great Godfrey! Do those pictures show what the members look like? Could they not just be planning a kegger weekend in Iraq? Could they not just be cruising for chicks in the Holy Land?<<

Apparently you are unaware of how precise modern DoD satellite imagery is. They could tell what brand of cigarette someone was smoking from low orbit in the late 70's. We aren't talking specks or even vague figures here. These are people who are considered threats to national security. We have various kinds of survelliance on them 24/7.

>>So Zarqawi had a boo-boo. Saddam gave him a band-aid. BIG FUCKING DEAL.<<

YEAH, moron...it IS a BIG FUCKING DEAL. Yeah it's called refuge. One of the elements of state-sponsorship. See, it goes like this: If no country will allow terrorists to openly operate within their borders they have to be very careful about organizing and recruiting, or any other activity for that matter. They show their face they get arrested. Get it yet?

>>You know what you've proven here, Steve? That Al-Queda and Iraq mutally hate the United States. We knew that already. Years ago. It's not impossible to visualise two opponents of the western world conspiring from time to time.<<

Exactly. Two very dangerous opponents. One (Saddam Hussein) with billions of dollars of resources at his disposal, the power of a nation with sovereignty, embassies, unsearchable diplomatic pouches, etc. as well as a history of cruelty and murder. The other (al-Qaeda) with a laser focus and the guts to pull off the largest terrorist attack on United States soil ever.

Now imagine you are commander-in-chief, you have all this information plus you have all the stuff that hasn't been declassified to protect assets in place all over the world. It's not hard to make the decision to change the regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Particularly because of the horrible human rights atrocities happening there. You know it wasn't long ago that liberals were touting the benefits of "nation building" and booting people like Milosevich out of power, now they act as if it's unconscionable. More hypocrisy.

>>You're linking sparse intelligence with justification of war.
The United States should have had better, more concrete intelligence than what I've just debunked.<<

You actually think you have "debunked" anything? Please. You have been sarcastic, cynical, and skeptical because you are blinded by your preconceived spoon-fed belief system and you believe every piece of propaganda Micheal Moore spouts. You have "debunked" NOTHING.

>>You need way more keen info to start a war.<<

Oh, O.K. we'll come ask you if our info is "keen" enough next time. What a joke.

>>Thank you for comparing me to Noam Chomsky. I happen to believe he's one helluva rational man.<<

You would. The idiot tried to deny the slaughter in the killing fields of Cambodia for years and I believe his prediction was, what a MILLION dead in Afghanistan. LOL!

[stevetseitz]

I just finally got a chance to see the debate between
Bill O'Reilly and Micheal Moore.

What a let down. It was like watching a high-school
fight. Both guys were so wound up and so afraid of
making a mistake they ended up play pat-a-cake and
having a poor debate!

Bill was correct in his assertion that Micheal Moore
is both WRONG and disingenuous in his assertion that
Bush lied about WMD in regards to Iraq. But....Bill
wasn't right either!!!!

And worse, he fell prey to the oldest leftist ploy in
the book, He conceded far too much.

Moore cleverly states that "Bush Lied about WMD!" This
statement is actually two statements

1. That the WMD evidence and intelligence was
definitely wrong.

2. That the President knew and lied about it.

Conservatives, being the suckers they are, usually get
all indignant at this point and say "The President did
not lie!" This statement concedes Moore's unspoken
accusation. (aarrrgh! which happens to be false!) Moore must have studied Chomskywell. As a linguist, Chomskyis a master at this sort of leap of logic. Oh well, the Marxists had wonderful dialecticians too.

Meanwhile back in the real world of facts:

David Kay's interim report is quite clear. It says:


"we are not yet at the point where we can say
definitively either that such weapon stocks do not
exist or that they existed before the war."

"From birth all of Iraq's WMD activities were highly
compartmentalized within a regime that ruled and kept
its secrets through fear and terror and with deception
and denial built into each program"

"Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and
documentation related to weapons programs began
pre-conflict and ran trans-to-post conflict"

"Post-OIF looting destroyed or dispersed important and
easily collectable material and forensic evidence
concerning Iraq's WMD program. As the report covers in
detail, significant elements of this looting were
carried out in a systematic and deliberate manner,
with the clear aim of concealing pre-OIF activities of
Saddam's regime"

"Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans
conflict period and may have taken evidence and even
weapons-related materials with them"

"Any actual WMD weapons or material is likely to be
small in relation to the total conventional armaments
footprint and difficult to near impossible to identify
with normal search procedures."

"It is important to keep in mind that even the
bulkiest materials we are searching for, in the
quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed
in spaces not much larger than a two car garage"

"The environment in Iraq remains far from permissive
for our activities, with many Iraqis that we talk to
reporting threats and overt acts of intimidation and
our own personnel being the subject of threats and
attacks. In September alone we have had three attacks
on ISG facilities or teams: The ISG base in Irbil was
bombed and four staff injured, two very seriously; a
two person team had their vehicle blocked by gunmen
and only escaped by firing back through their own
windshield; and on Wednesday, 24 September, the ISG
Headquarters in Baghdad again was subject to mortar
attack."

Among items discovered were a total of 97
vials-including those with labels consistent with the
al Hakam cover stories of single-cell protein and
biopesticides, as well as strains that could be used
to produce BW agents-were recovered from a scientist's
residence.

"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program
activities and significant amounts of equipment that
Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the
inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of
these deliberate concealment efforts have come about
both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and
officials concerning information they deliberately
withheld and through physical evidence of equipment
and activities that ISG has discovered that should
have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a
few examples of these concealment efforts, some of
which I will elaborate on later:

*A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses
within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained
equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for
continuing CBW research.

*A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human
testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to
prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not
to declare to the UN.

*Reference strains of biological organisms concealed
in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to
produce biological weapons.

*New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and
Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing
work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the
UN.

*Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes,
that would have been useful in resuming uranium
enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope
separation (EMIS).

*A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared
production facility and an admission that they had
tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of
500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

*Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel
propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant
missiles, a capability that was maintained at least
until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi
scientists have said they were told to conceal from
the UN.

*Plans and advanced design work for new long-range
missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well
beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN.
Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to
threaten targets through out the Middle East,
including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

*Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to
obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km
range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300
km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other
prohibited military equipment.

*In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment
efforts, we have been faced with a systematic
sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a
wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies
suspected of WMD work.

"The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence - hard
drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment
cleaned of all traces of use - are ones of deliberate,
rather than random, acts."

Moore was wrong that WMD or
the "imminent threat" theory was the only reason that
justified the war in Iraq. Three basic reasons were
given by the Bush administration:

1. Iraq's terror ties.

2. Iraq's WMD programs.

3. Iraq's humanitarian conditions.


So, in conclusion, the WMD programs DID in fact exist
and the connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq is there for anyone with eyes to see.

We need to look no further that the mass graves
and the torture chambers found in Iraq to determine
that the Bush administration's third assertion was
true as well.

With all the facts on his side, O'Reilly's debate
with Moore should have been a blow-out instead of judo
match. Conservatives too often concede when they should attack.
Conservatives worry about their reputation going so
far as to remain silent when they should speak up.
When leftists, who have little concern about their
reputation, lob something like "Bush lied" into the
public arena it becomes a battle cry or a slogan. If
unchecked, it becomes "conventional wisdom" as it's
double meaning seeps into the society's vernacular. If
we aren't careful it will be written as history.

[pmw]

That's interesting Steve. I didn't realize they had finally had a debate. And as is par for the course with that show, it sounds like they were watching their words for fear of being semantically trapped. I just can't get in to tv that's based on brow beating guests/hosts over their phrasings. The spirit, not the letter....

The McLaughlin Group is a pretty interesting show on the other hand. The panelists tend to be split down the middle and rarely find common ground. Still it seems to be a pretty heartfelt, informed battle every week, and amongst people who have a modicum of respect for each other which is sadly absent from the shock-jock journalism of Bill O'Reilly's show.

P

[Brice]

A.
I find that the facts, dates and proof that you offer to be
weak to say the least. I mean really, what type of government
spends the time and effort that America does trying to convince
the world that they are constantly right.

I quote:

I firmly believe that the facts support that decision, in spite of some mistakes and misjudgments. I've put those facts forward... this is all I can do.

Mistakes and misjudgments are part of the facts that you put forth. I can't believe that you could even put a post that says
facts are based on mistakes and misjudgments.

And speaking as an American, my country has been harbouring
terrorists for years. Be it IRA members, PLO members or whomever; if America sees a way of advancing their politics and beliefs by any means possible then why is it such a shock when you see other regimes do the same thing?

As for asking me to join Al Queda, please don't stoop to such
immature statements. That would be like me asking you to stop believing in fictional characters like Jesus Christ, for which there
is also no proof that he existed outside un-credited author of the
The Bible.

[Johann]

The U.S. has many enemies- a fact that anduril has pointed out.
Thanks, I happen to agree.

You suggest I join Al-Queda?

You are exactly like BUSH: "Either you are with us or with the terrorists!"

{edited}
I want to side with truth. Pardon me for looking at both sides with scrutiny. Pardon me for seeking the real reasons for war and not accepting that the war was justified because of terrorists.

There has not been one single terrorist attack in the States since 9/11 (save the anthrax threats).

Where's all this terrorist activity taking place?
Certainly not in Boise Idaho. Or New Orleans for that matter.
It's happening in Iraq. All caused by Bush.

You bet your ass I want more proof. I want complete, utter disclosure on where, when, why and how war is justified. I want mile-long paper trails. I want to be completely clear (or as clear as is possible) so that I can support my leaders.

They haven't done anything in that regard.

You spit huge amounts of government-approved "facts" yet you cannot seem to understand that I (and many many people) don't stand behind them.

Why?

Because Bush and his policy makers acted on them without thinking them through.

They rushed to war Steve. It was a hasty plan because 9/11 changed the rules.

Not only did Bush respond to the Terrorists in a way that feeds right into them, he put our nations (U.S. & Canada) at even more risk.

Now those terrorists have a purpose in life. Those Al-Queda members who flew the planes are being thought of as heroes.

Now there are definite polarizations in 2004 and we will indeed be living with them "for the rest of our lives".

The pissing away of our rights and freedoms (via the Patriot Act) is not something I take lightly. I'm violently angry that Bush felt
we'd be safer and righteous in fighting a complex enemy, all the while laughing to the bank.
{edited}

[pmw]

Ok, once again, this is getting absurd. I may bring this one to end. Getting back to the circle analogy, I think we may have come fulll circle... Perhaps these are better exchanges for email, because nothing productive is coming out of them at the moment.

I don't fault anyone for being emotional, but there has to be an extra amount of respect for the other users if you intend to communicate with them here.

If you don't respect other users (which is fine), don't post your messages to them here, do it via another means.

P

[Johann]

Indeed.

Please do drive a stake into this maddening, pointless excercise.

[Brice]

Maybe this is best finished outside of this forum.

[pmw]

closed thread. film anyone?
P