So it seems they got Saddam.

Good post Jellin, but I pretty much agree with Aaron on this, for a number of reasons. Our response to 9/11 was insanely disproportionate. Did you know that far more people died in the US because of car accidents during that same September? Or that around 30,000 die from the flu in the US each year? Where's the war on cars? the war on flu? The war on everything else that causes far more death annualy than terrorism? How about the war on US led wars? We killed about ten times the number of people that died in the trade center, and we're still adding to the body count.

What happened was a crime, perpetrated by what amounts to an organized crime syndicate. It should have been dealt with accordingly.

Iraq had not one iota to do with 9/11, so how do you justify that in the war on terrorism? Gee, no WMD to be found anywhere. Oops... our bad!

If we had not invaded Afghanistan, and instead extended an olive branch, two things would have happened. Either nothing, or another terrorist attack. If it had been the latter, the ENTIRE WORLD would have been signing up to go stamp out the terrorists. Instead we severely damaged our relations with a large number of our traditional allies, and did a pretty good job of making the rest of the world fear us more than they fear Al Queda.

And I for one don't believe that we're one bit safer now than we were in October of 2001... probably less safe because we've given a lot of people reasons to hate us more than they already did.

OMG! They cought him?!?! *as I watch the news* Haha! he was in a hole! Well, I can go to work safer now! now all we need to do is get all of his loyalists, Bin Ladin, some Dirty Stinkin Apes, Sponge Bob, and Gary Coleman locked away. Then I can... ummm... iunno, watch TV without going crazy? meh, I will just play SL

Im just hoping the democratic (referring to democrasy, not the politcal party) system holds out during the 2004 elections... please please please please no recounts again. I dont think I can take it :quiver:

From page 50 through 51 of PNAC:


“A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor"

[/B]




Um, I was only talking about Afghanistan in response to a remark made about bin laden earlier in the thread. I don't know why we're suddenly on cars and the flu.. Chip, anyone can do the "Well what about xxxx ?" game, it can go on for hours, right up there with the "I'm not touching you" one.


[/B]

Maybe, horrible word at times. Maybe that's true, all I know is in my heart, if, god forbid, if it had been my decision, I couldn't live with myself knowing I did nothing and even worse happened. I would have had to do whatever I could to stop that, to end is as quickly as possible. With whatever force necessary. And as far as sending our people over to fight and perhaps die, we isn't that what the military is for?

Please don't get me wrong here, as I'm sure SO many will, I'm not saying this in a callous way. What I mean is that, and if anyone in the military believes I have this wrong, please tell me, what I mean is that I always thought that most people, no not all, but most people join because they want to protect us. To make us safe in what is, regardless of what people would wish it to be, a very unsafe world.

Does anyone think that in today’s world we actually are in danger of invasion by a superpower? Not too many of them around nowadays.

(by the way, I'm still not talking about Iraq, I think Iraq was a huge mistake on many many levels)

I really believe that any significant danger to us will be small unpredictable strikes made by even more unpredictable lunatics with guns. AKA terrorism. I believe in the danger of bands of monstrous people, working often in collusion with monstrous government officials. I believe they're out there. I believe many of these people work, actually work, as in a day job that doesn’t end work, towards attacking us.

I thank (fill-in-your-deity-or-whatever) that we do have people willing to risk everything to protect the helpless and unprotected of this country from unsuspected acts of horror and murder.

Chip, you don't have automatic responses? Seems as though you have published a list of them.
You also belittled people and used name calling in a similiar thread. I have a suggestion for armchair lawyers/politicians; you are nothing but parrots repeating what you want to believe. Those not so inclined need not take offense.

*Did you know that far more people died in the US because of car accidents during that same September? Or that around 30,000 die from the flu in the US each year?*


Actually we have the AMA, FDA, AAA, MADD, flu shots, seat belts, airbags, and doctors fighting those domestic *battles*, not to mention your examples are accidents and disease.

Get a grip and stop using fear and gloom and doom tactics.

With all due respect..... a lot of people who DO know what we're talking about and are well informed on the issues are, nonetheless, unelectable.... and we know it.

My positions and my atheism would bar me from any public office... only because of other peoples' misunderstandings and prejudices. Should I keep quiet about political issues?

Personally I don't think so.

Corwin, I once promised I wouldnt argue with stones. Especially those who troll the boards nightly looking for political discourse. Do not assume because I don't prostitute myself to one party I am not well informed.

Quote by Corwin: *With all due respect..... a lot of people who DO know what we're talking about and are well informed*

I can't help but notice the caps on *DO*

What are you saying? I can only assume you are using that to tell me I don't know what I am talkng about. Thanks O mighty Corwin, creator of all reason and logic.

Thanks for once again denouncing the validity of someone elses viewpoint. Is this your life Corwin? BTW, I never asked you to stay quiet. Every roadrunner needs its coyote.
Stew away.

PS do you think your atheism wouldve been a hindrance to your electability in Iraq?

The DO in caps is an emphasis against your point that concerning '. I have a suggestion for armchair lawyers/politicians; you are nothing but parrots repeating what you want to believe."

Contrary to what you apparently believe... some of us who aren't actively in political office do actually know what we're talking about.... and have various other reasons for not being in office.

By the way.... Hussein isn't much of a muslim overall.... he started playing it up before the invasion to get people fired up to defend the country.... but the Ba'athists are a secular party. That's why our allies the Kurds and their friend Osama bin Laden were calling for his overthrow by force.

Yeah, yer right, not a Sunni Baathist at all, nothing to do with religion, that which you are vehemently against. Bud, I have been reading and studying indo- euoropean history since the 70's and continue to do so, dont try and pull yer pseudo intellectual crap on me.

Of course you will try to downplay his religiousness. It fits your scheme of non religion. Look, I was simply pointing out hipocrisy in Chip's post. I didn't expect I would have to argue once again with a political battering ram.

I am a definate middle of the roader and I delight in tickling the feathers of extremists, so humor me.


P.S. A quote by me;

*I have a suggestion for armchair lawyers/politicians; you are nothing but parrots repeating what you want to believe. THOSE NOT SO INCLINED NEED NOT TAKE OFFENSE. *

Please read the capitalized part before you respond with a formulaic dissertation.

No, you're an arrogant boor who delights in stirring up nonsense. Hence statements like, 'if you're not in office, you're just a parrot and you should shut up about it.'

The Ba'athists align more with the Sunnis than any other group... but part of that doctrine is governmental secularism... unlike the Shi'ites who feel that Islam should be involved in all aspects of life... and Sharia should be temporal as well as religious law.

How would you know what I'm 'vehemently against' Nolan? Gee... sounds like you're making assumptions. But then you have to... how else could you make this personal?



Yes. I'm telling you that if you think people who aren't in political office are just parrots.... you don't know what you're talking about.... and are arrogant AND ignorant to boot.

Is that clear enough for you?

lets see... you are double my post count in less than 2 months, and i am the arrogant one and the pot stirrer?

Maybe because I respond when i feel strongly about something.


Maybe its because you have all the answers.

Maybe I'll go with the first one.

PS youve made quite clear your religous stance. It 's not to farfrom mine. Only I dont use mine in political conversations.

Post count is irrelevant.... content not quantity. And you only seem to post things that are... let's face it.... intended to provoke a response... and then when called on it, rationally.... you respond with 'OOOOOOOOOOO look this person is sooooo full of himself!!!!'

Methinks someone needs a new hobby....

thanks for the reinforcement feniks.

Are you Chip? Or Chips lawyer?
I was addressing Chip. Are you speaking for Chip?

Thanks for the enlightenment on the mid-east, I am sure it serves you well in your circles.

I won't reply to youany more Corwin, as you are a reactionary, not so unlike this administration you profess to despise.

I would like to ask you no longer make up quotes and attribute them to me.

i.e. 'OOOOOOOOOOO look this person is sooooo full of himself!!!!'

I was responding to chip, and you juxtaposed yourself. Now take the heat or get outta the kitchen.

Thanks for proving my point so well Nolan... have a nice... um.... well I suppose you call it a life so.... have a nice life then.

ok, so I found this quote by Jefferson, a great humanist and a progenitor of the concept of inalienable rights...



So, this man who constructed the Declaration of Independence, asserts the will of men to resist despotism and tyranny.

Since the Declaration is the first philosophical and practical document of the most powerful and enduring democracy in known existence, I beleive that the principles it has fostered provide a satisfactory foundation for action against enemies of freedom such as Usama Bin Laden, Taliban leaders, and Saddam Hussein. These people act as a threat to the preservation and perpetuation of life, liberty, and happiness for all men and women.

We could choose to do nothing, but then so could that choice have been made countless times in recent history. How might humanity have suffered without these principles applied?

So Champie.... explain why it's a good idea to topple a dictator..... knowing he'll be replaced by someone even worse?

How does this help anybody's freedom?

You suggest that you know the future?

What if he were not replaced by a dictator?

What if he was, would that mean that people should not try again and again (like has happened in history) until all men and women know freedom from tyranny.

Or do you suppose that since you have freedom from tyranny that is enough for you? What kind of human spirit would that be?

just want to point out that I was using the "royal" you, not speaking directly to Corwin. I don't want what's his name calling me finger pointer..oh wait, did I point fingers again by remarking directly on what a specif person said. I hope I didnt offend anyone's tender ego.

again, not trying to bully Corwin, I wasnt speaking to him, or any specific person other than someone who might assume that I was speaking directly to them, in which case I guess I am speaking to them, which makes me a dirty finger pointer (if I'm going to point fingers, I may as well point the dirty one)

Do you honestly believe anyone in the DoD or CIA was stupid enough to not know that the only people who could possibly replace Hussein were even worse than he was?

Is it possible that someone less dangerous than Hussein could replace him?

We could go on and on. The fact is that there are many monarchs, dictators and tyrants who no longer rule over people...

People from all over the world have fought and failed in revolutions and wars of ideas. Their contributions did not die on battlefields and prison cells. Their ideas and small triumphs have been catalysts to great change years, decades and centuries later. Only by example will the idea of freedom become prevelent.

I believe that many, if not most Iraqis believe that they have the opportunity for the kind of freedom that I suggest. Even if the DoD or CIA dont wish to make such an offer to them. If they believe it is possible, they will someday achieve it.

Reality is a condition which prohibits us or anyone else from just wishing it to be different and thereby having it be. It requires a fight.