We should indict Saddam if he is guilty of 9/11 crimes

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Aug 22 2006, 01:03 PM) [snapback]307603[/snapback]</div>

whatever. the wmd's is getting to be a tired issue - when we get to inspect syria we will know for sure. the issue is moot with irans tireless pursuit of nukes which you support.

in terms of torture - i can provide no evidence of what went on in pakistan - let your imagination run wild.

in your world saddam sits pretty, funding terror ($25,000 per palestinian suicide bomber,etc, etc), doing evil, iran goes nuclear, and the rest up to your imagination again.

keep saying kumbaya and thanking those willing to protect you from your own beliefs - you defend evil and you deny there is any problem at all.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Aug 22 2006, 01:10 PM) [snapback]307607[/snapback]</div>

how is that?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 22 2006, 01:16 PM) [snapback]307609[/snapback]</div>

Ah yes. When you're asked to back up your assertions, WMDs become a "tired issue." Well done. You get a gold star!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 22 2006, 01:16 PM) [snapback]307609[/snapback]</div>

OK. Well, I can provide no evidence of what the US government did to John McCain with a sheep in Argentina. Let your imagination run wild.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 22 2006, 01:16 PM) [snapback]307609[/snapback]</div>

Here's the problem. You can construct any scenario that you care to if you're willing to distort facts or make things up. Once again, I do believe that the world is a better place without Saddam. HOWEVER, I also believe that the US made the world a more dangerous place by invading Iraq, creating unrest, and not having a clear strategy on how to deal with the problems before the invasion happened.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 22 2006, 01:16 PM) [snapback]307609[/snapback]</div>

Many people believe that the current US is too closely tied to religion, keeps dissent down by making people constantly afraid of terror plots and seeks (and has) WMDs. A hardcore left-winger might use a bit of hyperbole and make the same statement you made about Iraq.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 22 2006, 12:35 PM) [snapback]307580[/snapback]</div>

not military trained - and happen to be pro-choice, pro-stem cell research, and other "leftward" ideas. i just am a realist that places American security first.

i do not view Mr. Bush as evil. He has not enslaved and American, he has not taken away one of your civil liberties, he has prevented to date any further attack on our mainland (i do not want to bury any more friends or neighbors -- i work in NYC and was here for all the glory that was 9/11 - my daughter was downtown at the time going to NYU, had to also rescue my Dad, etc). Until this threat is neurtalized, i stand for pre-emption/aggressive attitude towards those that want us dead. Ask the German's today how they feel about being neutral - they narrowly missed a huge terror attack the other day - but it is headed at them too. it is a war of ideologies of governance, of beliefs, of modernizing a religion that is stuck in a time.

to believe Bush is doing this for political game is becoming part of the problem and not the solution. I do not care who or what is the President (Truman, FDR, etc) I want them to be there to protect me and my country. and in a time of war, i will support whoever they are. i am now sending money to Lieberman's campaign too. funny how the democrats are becoming the party that supports evil, that cannot see good and denies the existance of evil - much less accepts it and the risks it opens us to.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Aug 22 2006, 08:37 AM) [snapback]307545[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, If only we could ALL learn to sing Kumbaya and hold hand . . . then everything would be good and nice with the world and everyone would just get along peachy.
(OOOPS, I forgot, the Taliban would behead you because you were singing about your lord and not theirs. And if you refuse to sing about their lord . . . OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!!!! :mellow: )


Palestinians celebrating on 9/11.
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2005/10/index.html

 

the only gold star is the one you will receive from the Islamofascists for enabling them and their cause. Mr Bush to you is evil, Saddam is good. It is ok for a free press here, but not there. It is OK for Saddam to kill millions of people - i guess you support muslim genocide too in Darfur - but Bush is the mass murderer in your world.

go figure

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 22 2006, 01:30 PM) [snapback]307621[/snapback]</div>

What is wrong with you? Are you completely incapable of reading what I said? I specifically made the point that I think Saddam is evil and the world is a better place without him in power.

I guess that whoever doesn't subscribe to your infintesimally narrow world view and your beliefs about how the US should deal with world problems is evil and "helping the terrorists." I suppose debate is impossible with a person who just spouts off their opinion, presents them as facts, and sticks their fingers in their ears and screams "NA NA NA NA NA NA NA!" whenever someone tries to challenge their assertions.

 

You make statements you cannot defend, dont make them....

China and India are in a bit of a pickle. They want to have the comforts that come with an "American" lifestyle yet they also realize that our way of life is intrinsically toxic and cannot be duplicated on sucha grand scale as their population would dictate. A great quote from Mahatma Ghandi:

as the number of democracies have spread over the past 200 years, the number of world wide conflicts has??

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Aug 22 2006, 01:37 PM) [snapback]307626[/snapback]</div>

Then I am sorry - my assumption is now that you favor preventing Iran from going nuclear. My fingers occasionally get stuck in my ears; my bad.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 22 2006, 01:45 PM) [snapback]307632[/snapback]</div>

I of course favor preventing Iran from going nuclear. I think that 95% of the people in the US probably favor that (at least with the current government in Iran). My point is just that because I (or others) may not subscribe to your idea of how to stop Iran from going nuclear doesn't mean that I want them to get the bomb and to nuke all of their neighbors. There is more than one way to skin a cat (or stop a dicatator); maybe your way is the best; maybe my way is the best; more likely than not, neither of our ways are the best. This is one (of many) reasons why I think it is imperative that we debate this issue (and other issues) and we shouldn't just support Bush "because he's the President." The President is far from infallable, and there is often a better way than the path that he would choose without being challenged.

And I certainly appriciate your apology. It definately makes me respect (and consider) your arguments more.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 22 2006, 10:27 AM) [snapback]307619[/snapback]</div>

This is where I feel there is a bit of a problem. Security is a global issue, not just one of state. So to be truely secure one must cooperate and tackle world issues with something other than bombs and guns. Troops will not secure us some biological warfare. Read up on nanotechnology lately?

Actually he has. Have you read into how many millions of dollars that have been thrown into his campaign to further the cause of industry and corporate goals? How many environmental laws have been weakended or abo,lished so that his corporate pals can profit with impunity while the american people carry the costs and suffer from the pollution. Is it not a civil liberty to be able to enjoy the commons and drink non-toxic water or eat a fish you and your son caught? (I dare you to do that often on the east coast). How about when I travel abroad and people from other countries look at me with disgust (beyond the normal reaction because Americans are noisy, egotistical and ethnocentric) because they think that I support and believe in everything my president does. Those are civil liberties to me and yes I feel they have been violated and I can provide proof of all of it.

Then as you are so fond of saying... You are a part of the problem by not researching the reasons for this war other than fear.

I'm off to meet a girl but I'll leave you with this. Have a great day everyone, you too dbermanmd. I don't get upset over these things and enjoya good debate so no hard feelings.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 22 2006, 01:54 PM) [snapback]307642[/snapback]</div>

never any hard feelings - i am just diametrically opposed to your thought processes - i guess i dont want to trust other countries to do the right thing after WWII - i do not want history to repeat itself but this time with wmd's. security first - without that everything you worry about is nill.

good luck with the girl - she is not wearing a barka is she the path your on will make it more probable one day.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Aug 22 2006, 01:53 PM) [snapback]307641[/snapback]</div>

I glad I have pleased you and have made my arguments more powerful. We all can be wrong occasionally, no?

Preventing Iran from going nuclear is only going to happen one way - I am sure you agree with that. The only question is how its going to be done and when.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 22 2006, 11:01 AM) [snapback]307646[/snapback]</div>

Don't get me wrong. i dont want to see nulcear weapons in the hands of ANYONE. It is not right for us to have them and no one else either. I just do not like the way our administration has gone against the desires of other countries and the U.N. especially. To have a chance at security we have to cooporate with the world. Alienating our allies and coming across as a global bully may put us on everyones %$#& list and you know what happens to bullies in the long run. I've seen a Christmas Story. lol

No barka

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Aug 22 2006, 01:29 PM) [snapback]307620[/snapback]</div>

Yes, Scarlett, there are moonbats who love publicity - what was your point again?

 

Some more comment on our vomitous govt.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 22 2006, 02:01 PM) [snapback]307646[/snapback]</div>

Everyone is wrong occationally (although, it seems like the right wing folks are wrong more often ). It's just that, when you present opinions (or your view of things) as fact (as you often do), it makes you come off as a completely unreasonable and crazy.

I don't think that preventing Iran from going nuclear is only going to happen "one way." Or maybe I do. It depends on how broadly you define "one way." If you mean military action, then I think that you are probably right (although I'm not even sure that that's the only way). If you mean that the US should go in their with guns blazing, then I don't agree with you. IANAIRS ("I am not an international relations specialist"), but it seems to me that some amount of diplomacy with some amount of international military pressure is probably the right way to go. On the other hand, the failure of the UN (so far) when it comes to Lebanon is not giving me any great hope for a better outcome in Iran.

While I agree that something should be done, Iraq should not serve as the model for what we want to do in Iran. I don't think that the world can afford to do nothing when it comes to Iran, but I also think that we do not have an ideal solution yet, so it's reasonable to listen to lots of different ideas; especially those who think they can solve the problems without military action. I think that we can all agree that if we can avoid military action, it's in everyone's best interests.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Aug 22 2006, 03:59 PM) [snapback]307723[/snapback]</div>

I think that no matter what we do, Iran is going Nuclear. There are no effective levers to apply in this case. They have the oil and we are the addicts. Iran has strong relations with Russia & China - both nations are feeling in no mood to buckle under to Dubya these days. Additionally Europe (& most likely UK) will not accede to a military strike nor, perhaps, even financial or trade sanctions. The military option is probably still open to us but we are moving further and further from being seen as a beacon of justice and democracy and more as a swaggering superpower. Because of Iraq, we cannot possibly commit the number of troops required to do this job properly. Just some links of interest:

Iran & the Sunburn Missile - lots of hyperbole here
SA-15 Tor M-1 Missile defense systems
Straits of Hormuz (its NewMax so its largely crap)

Iran is no Iraq.

 

Still waiting for Wildkow to tell me how the world is better off since invading Iraq. Or.... is it your tounge that the cat has caught? p.s. in your own words please. p.p.s. Please respond to the points I made. Thanks in advance. p.p.p.s I don't have anything against you Wildkow, and I truly am trying to understand where you are coming from.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 22 2006, 11:28 AM) [snapback]307576[/snapback]</div>

This isn't a good answer, but I haven't been following what the French have been doing in Lebanon. I'm merely replying to a question about Iraq that Wildkow asked me. If you want to call me a facilitator of evil, please tell me where my analysis is wrong.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Aug 22 2006, 11:08 AM) [snapback]307650[/snapback]</div>

I don't care where I get my pictures from, as long as they tell the story.
At least I gave credit for where I got the picture I posted. I noticed you didn't. :huh:

My point was directed at the statement: "The global goodwill after 9/11 seems to me to have been squandered."
It's not one big happy family- this world. Any global goodwill which may have been squandered must not have been that strong to begin with. There are people in the world who would love to see Israel and the USA disappear, then the rest who aren't likeminded. 9/11 didn't cause them to have goodwill towards us.

Global Goodwill due to 9/11 = a bunch of namby pamby crap! . . . it was never there . . . otherwise there wouldn't have been celebrating in many parts of the world.

Get over it, the whole world will never get along. <_<
If you must . . . Go ahead . . . hold hands with those who think like you . . . start singing “I'd like to teach the world to sing . . . in perfect harmony . . .†- but, expect to be shot in the back of the head . . . BECAUSE THEY DON'T CARE!!!!

 

Courtesy of wikipedia
(my emphasis added)

War Rationale Post September 11, 2001

Reasons for the invasion and occupation as stated by the United States in 2002 before the Iraq invasion are controversial, and have varied over time. The first calls for war on Iraq came from the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and the American Enterprise Institute, with arguments based largely on the alleged threat that Saddam posed to American interests in the region, and the project of American influence into the next century. These reasons were not those given by the Bush administration of the United States and have never been recognized by the government.

Beginning with a speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 12, 2002 President George W. Bush began a public campaign to convince the world that Saddam Hussein was violating both the commitments he had made at the end of the Gulf War and which prior UN resolutions dealt with: weapons of mass destruction, human rights, Kuwaiti prisoners of war, terrorism, long range SCUD missiles, the U.N. Oil-for-Food Programme and allowing UN inspectors to return to Iraq after their removal in 1998.[27] Despite repeated claims by President Bush to the contrary, continuing even recently,[28][29][30][31] Iraq agreed to allow inspectors back into the country on September 17, 2002.[32][33] Inspections began after the passage of U.N. Resolution 1441 on November 18, 2002.[34]

On October 10, 2002 the 107th Congress of the United States passed HJ Res 114 titled "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." Among the reasons noted in the Congressional resolution authorizing force were, Iraq's non-compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441,[35] aid to terrorists (PALF),[36][37] a 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush (George W. Bush's father)[38] and the Emir of Kuwait, in addition to violations of the no-fly zones.[39]

In a January 27, 2003 report to the U.N., chief inspector Hans Blix, while noting Iraqi cooperation with regards to prompt access to inspection sites, stated "...Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace." The reasons for this include a failure to account for quantities of VX nerve agent and anthrax and also the inability of the U.N. to interview Iraqi scientists outside the country.[40] Hans Blix was strongly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, and in dismissing Bush Administration spin in the run-up to the invasion, famously compared the selling the war to marketing a refrigerator. [41]

On February 5, 2003 Colin Powell attempted to convince the UN Security Council of the threat Saddam Hussein's regime posed.[42] The Bush administration also claimed that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda and other terrorists organizations, including the Palestinian Arab Liberation Front (PALF).[43][44][45][46] Bush administration officials also claimed that Iraq was reconstituting their development of nuclear weapons.[47] Powell later stated he regretted making those accusations in light of subsequent failure to find any WMD in Iraq or links to Al Qaeda on top of the fact that most of it could not be substantiated by undisputed evidence.