PDA

View Full Version : Annan: Invasion of Iraq 'illegal'


Hel'n
09-17-2004, 09:32 PM
Also, US intel report shows 'dark prospects' for Iraq, as Bush's postwar policy takes other hits.

by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com


In an interview with the BBC Wednesday, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan said the decision to launch an invasion of Iraq should have been taken by the entire United Nations, and not taken unilaterally. When pressed for a third time by a BBC interviewer if that meant that the invasion was illegal, Mr. Annan said that "if you like" it was "not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

"I think in the end everybody's concluded it's best to work together with our allies and through the UN," he said. "I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added.
Annan also said that, given the current levels of unrest in Iraq, it was unlikely that it would be possible for "credible" elections to be held by the current scheduled date in January.

The US and its allies in Iraq almost immediately denounced Annan's statements. Randy Scheunemann, a former adviser to US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, said the statement, 51 days before a US election, "reeks of political interference."

The Age reports Thursday that Australian Prime Minister John Howard, himself in the middle of an election campaign where his decision to send Australian troops to Iraq is a key issue, said the invasion was "warranted." He said the UN was a fine body, but it was often "paralyzed" because "its members struggled to reach consensus." Britain and Japan also defended their decisions to send troops to Iraq.

Meanwhile, The New York Times reports that a National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush contains a "dark assessment of prospects for Iraq." The Associated Press reports that the report, prepared over the summer by senior analysts (and before the current wave of new violence in Iraq) offers a bleak picture of Iraq's future security and stability.

The National Intelligence Council looked at the political, economic and security situation in the war-torn country and determined at best the situation would be tenuous in terms of stability, a US official said late Wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity. At worst, the official said, were "trend lines that would point to a civil war."
A recent report by a prestigious British foreign affairs think tank, known as Chatham House, also said that civil war was the "default scenario" for Iraq.

USA Today reports that the bleak prospects contained in the estimates were apparently just one of the reasons that Wednesday a group of leading senators accused the White House of "incompetence" in its reconstruction efforts in Iraq and said the United States "could lose the war unless it improves security and gets more money into the Iraqi economy."

Among those making critical remarks were the two senior Republican members of the Foreign Relations Committee: Chairman Richard Lugar of Indiana and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. Sen. Hagel said the situation had gone beyond "embarrassing" and had entered the "zone of dangerous," and that the entire effort in Iraq was "in deep trouble." Sen. Lugar was also blunt in his assessment of the sitaution.

'Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration what I call the "dancing in the street crowd," that we just simply will be greeted with open arms,' Lugar said. 'The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent.'

US senators weren't the only ones critical of the effort in Iraq. In an article in the Guardian newspaper, US journalist Sydney Blumenthal (who was one of the first journalists to report on the torture of Iraq prisoners by US soliders at Abu Ghraib prison) quoted "leading strategists and prominent retired generals" who told him the "war is all but lost."

Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency [under the first President Bush], told me [Sydney Blumenthal]: "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al Qaeda, it's worse, he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." He adds: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends." Retired general Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and head of US Central Command, told me: "The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options. We're conducting a campaign as though it were being conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on the ground. It's so unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world. The priorities are just all wrong."

The above sentiments are greatly at odds with those of Mr. Rumsfeld, who last Friday told an audience at the National Press Club in Washington that as far as the war on terror and Iraq were concerned "so far, so good ..."

'The Taliban regime is gone. Those still not killed or captured are on the run. Despite a campaign of violence and intimidation, over 10 million Afghans have registered to vote, including 4 million women . . . And they've registered to vote in what will be the first free election in that country's history. Saddam Hussein's regime is finished. His sons are dead. He's in a prison cell, where he awaits the justice of the Iraqi people, which he will soon face. Libya has said now that it is renouncing its illicit weapons programs, and it says it will cooperate with the efforts to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction and that it's seeking to reenter the community of civilized nations. Time will tell, but so far, so good ...'

The administration's positions on Iraq took another hit on Monday, however, when Secretary of State Colin Powell told a Senate Governmental Affairs Committee meeting that it was unlikely that any weapons of mass destruction would ever be found in Iraq. Mr. Powell further "shocked" his audience when he said that "some US intelligence officials knew that many of the claims about weapons and terrorist ties were suspect" at the time he gave his speech to the United Nations saying Iraq had WMD, but they didn't tell him or other officials about their doubts.

Powell also said on Sunday that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was "linked in any way" with the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, a position that puts him at odds with statements repeatedly made by Vice President Dick Cheney that Mr. Hussein could have been involved.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0916/dailyUpdate.html?s=ent2

Donger
09-17-2004, 09:44 PM
Forgive me, but who exactly got 10 BILLION dollars from the UN Oil-For-Food program?

Blow me, Kofi.

RINGLEADER
09-17-2004, 09:50 PM
ROFL

This coming from the guy who won't release documents related to the UN's Oil-For-Bribes program or even acknowledge that they did anything wrong.

Patriot 21
09-17-2004, 10:08 PM
Doesn't someone have a spare bullet laying around that would take care of that maggot? He is worse than Khadafi......(or how ever the hell you spell it.)

Michael Michigan
09-18-2004, 01:15 AM
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/181/1232/400/UNPrezMd.jpg

WilliamTheIrish
09-18-2004, 01:49 AM
Kofi Annan means very little to me.

However, I really, really hate to see former Armed Services commanders saying this shiot in the NYTimes.

Not real good for morale.

KCWolfman
09-18-2004, 02:28 AM
I bet he does find it to be illegal. After all, he lost his cut rate oil program and his opportunity to fund terrorists currently operating in Iraq.


Scumbitch! I hope he gets cancer of the face.

2bikemike
09-18-2004, 02:49 AM
IMHO I think its a crime that the UN would put forth all the resoulutions and then fail to enforce said resoulutions.

If I raised my kids the way the UN enforces resolutions they would never do what I said.

Rukdafaidas
09-18-2004, 05:09 AM
IMHO I think its a crime that the UN would put forth all the resoulutions and then fail to enforce said resoulutions.

If I raised my kids the way the UN enforces resolutions they would never do what I said.
:thumb:
That's exactly what I was going to say.

whoman69
09-18-2004, 07:47 AM
During the next four years we need to get more troops on the ground and take out the insurgents with overwhelming numbers. We went into this war with too few numbers despite criticism from the Pentagon and were not able to control areas after militarily defeating them. We left the Iraquis to fend for themselves and are then surprised the area went into chaos. A renewed effort to bring in troops from other nations must be made. If we are going to bring peace, then the area must be made safe for the average citizen.
I also think we should use advertising on TV throughout the Mideast region to denounce the terrorists as a threat to the teachings of Muhammed.

mikey23545
09-18-2004, 08:00 AM
During the next four years we need to get more troops on the ground and take out the insurgents with overwhelming numbers. We went into this war with too few numbers despite criticism from the Pentagon and were not able to control areas after militarily defeating them. We left the Iraquis to fend for themselves and are then surprised the area went into chaos. A renewed effort to bring in troops from other nations must be made. If we are going to bring peace, then the area must be made safe for the average citizen.
I also think we should use advertising on TV throughout the Mideast region to denounce the terrorists as a threat to the teachings of Muhammed.

Surprisingly, I find nothing to disagree with in this post...

mlyonsd
09-18-2004, 08:09 AM
Annan is a disgrace.

jcl-kcfan2
09-18-2004, 08:20 AM
Lets go back a few years here;

Saddam got his butt kicked in D.S..

He signed a Ceasation of Hostilities agreement.

He did not live up to his agreement.

Hostilities resume.



:p

LVNHACK
09-18-2004, 08:22 AM
I wish the US would tell the UN to get the f()ck out of the country. Don't call us we'll call you...........

jettio
09-18-2004, 09:50 AM
Kofi Annan means very little to me.

However, I really, really hate to see former Armed Services commanders saying this shiot in the NYTimes.

Not real good for morale.

There is no doubt that Stooges did not know what they were getting into.

IN War, Morale is not as important as the decision makers knowing WTF they are doing.

Quit acting as if there is something wrong in telling the truth. I was raised to believe that lying is wrong, and to stand up for the truth.

Our troops deserve honest and wise leadership, quit suggesting that the truth ought to be suppressed about the undoubtedly incompetent leadership because of some false over-concern about morale.

Morale rallies around real leadership. Stooges have earned mistrust and disdain and it is time to get rid of them.

jettio
09-18-2004, 10:03 AM
Bush was obviously faking it when going to the UN, he had his mind made up on the invasion time frame, and was determined to go ahead no matter what facts were uncovered or what developed diplomatically.

He was a phony that disrespected the other nations, and he sent our troops and money into a huge pile of dogsh*t.

When you ignore advice and end up being wrong in exactly the way that the folks you disrespected say you were, you are simply an idiot that does not deserve responsibility.

When DV held on to G-Rob, against most Chiefs' fans' advice, he was showing faith and loyalty, but he never abandoned the reality that it might not work out.

Stooges were talkin' all of that fur us or agin' us, this is going to be f*ckin' easy no matter what you say BS. The reality that has cost so much life and limb and money and prestige hit them dumbf*cks as a total surprise.

That is simply unforgivable.

And it is absolutely amazing that the political situation in our country has deteriorated to the point where a lot of Americans seem to have no standards for leadership for their leaders.

BigMeatballDave
09-18-2004, 10:07 AM
During the next four years we need to get more troops on the ground and take out the insurgents with overwhelming numbers. We went into this war with too few numbers despite criticism from the Pentagon and were not able to control areas after militarily defeating them. We left the Iraquis to fend for themselves and are then surprised the area went into chaos. A renewed effort to bring in troops from other nations must be made. If we are going to bring peace, then the area must be made safe for the average citizen.
I also think we should use advertising on TV throughout the Mideast region to denounce the terrorists as a threat to the teachings of Muhammed.Agreed.

BigMeatballDave
09-18-2004, 10:10 AM
Bush was obviously faking it when going to the UN, he had his mind made up on the invasion time frame, and was determined to go ahead no matter what facts were uncovered or what developed diplomatically.

He was a phony that disrespected the other nations, and he sent our troops and money into a huge pile of dogsh*t.

When you ignore advice and end up being wrong in exactly the way that the folks you disrespected say you were, you are simply an idiot that does not deserve responsibility.

When DV held on to G-Rob, against most Chiefs' fans' advice, he was showing faith and loyalty, but he never abandoned the reality that it might not work out.

Stooges were talkin' all of that fur us or agin' us, this is going to be f*ckin' easy no matter what you say BS. The reality that has cost so much life and limb and money and prestige hit them dumbf*cks as a total surprise.

That is simply unforgivable.

And it is absolutely amazing that the political situation in our country has deteriorated to the point where a lot of Americans seem to have no standards for leadership for their leaders.
ROFL Drama Queen...

jettio
09-18-2004, 10:49 AM
ROFL Drama Queen...

No surprise that you have become so used to our troops and innocent civilians losing their lives and arms and legs that it seems uinimportant to you.

WilliamTheIrish
09-18-2004, 11:15 AM
There is no doubt that Stooges did not know what they were getting into.

IN War, Morale is not as important as the decision makers knowing WTF they are doing.

Quit acting as if there is something wrong in telling the truth. I was raised to believe that lying is wrong, and to stand up for the truth.

Our troops deserve honest and wise leadership, quit suggesting that the truth ought to be suppressed about the undoubtedly incompetent leadership because of some false over-concern about morale.

Morale rallies around real leadership. Stooges have earned mistrust and disdain and it is time to get rid of them.

OK, Ironside. Where did I say that there is something wrong in telling the truth? Or even suggest so?

.

Hel'n
09-18-2004, 11:46 AM
Forgive me, but who exactly got 10 BILLION dollars from the UN Oil-For-Food program?

Blow me, Kofi.

I don't like Koffee Anal either... but the rest of the article was quite interesting...

Hel'n
09-18-2004, 11:47 AM
During the next four years we need to get more troops on the ground and take out the insurgents with overwhelming numbers. We went into this war with too few numbers despite criticism from the Pentagon and were not able to control areas after militarily defeating them. We left the Iraquis to fend for themselves and are then surprised the area went into chaos. A renewed effort to bring in troops from other nations must be made. If we are going to bring peace, then the area must be made safe for the average citizen.
I also think we should use advertising on TV throughout the Mideast region to denounce the terrorists as a threat to the teachings of Muhammed.

I actually agree with you. Now that we're stuck there, we have to overwhelm the insurgents, wipe them out, and then get the hell outta there...

Duck Dog
09-18-2004, 12:04 PM
During the next four years we need to get more troops on the ground and take out the insurgents with overwhelming numbers. We went into this war with too few numbers despite criticism from the Pentagon and were not able to control areas after militarily defeating them. We left the Iraquis to fend for themselves and are then surprised the area went into chaos. A renewed effort to bring in troops from other nations must be made. If we are going to bring peace, then the area must be made safe for the average citizen.
I also think we should use advertising on TV throughout the Mideast region to denounce the terrorists as a threat to the teachings of Muhammed.


Well said. Rep forth coming.

KCWolfman
09-18-2004, 12:28 PM
During the next four years we need to get more troops on the ground and take out the insurgents with overwhelming numbers. We went into this war with too few numbers despite criticism from the Pentagon and were not able to control areas after militarily defeating them. We left the Iraquis to fend for themselves and are then surprised the area went into chaos. A renewed effort to bring in troops from other nations must be made. If we are going to bring peace, then the area must be made safe for the average citizen.
I also think we should use advertising on TV throughout the Mideast region to denounce the terrorists as a threat to the teachings of Muhammed.
Damn, I agree 1000%

Rep

Hel'n
09-18-2004, 01:44 PM
Damn, I agree 1000%

Rep


OMG, we agree on something... Remember this date!

;)

DanT
09-18-2004, 02:02 PM
It's notable that Richard Perle has conceded that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. The White House has tried to pretend that Iraq posed a threat to the United States sufficient enough that it warranted a preemptive attack, a claim for which no convincing evidence has been provided and which was directly refuted by the fact that we went double-digit timezones away from our nation's capital and defeated the Iraqi army in a matter of days.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0%2C2763%2C1089158%2C00.html



War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday November 20, 2003
The Guardian

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defense permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defense policy board, which advises the US defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.

French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein".

Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, had argued loudly for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war.

"They're just not interested in international law, are they?" said Linda Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which launched a high court challenge to the war's legality last year. "It's only when the law suits them that they want to use it."

Mr Perle's remarks bear little resemblance to official justifications for war, according to Rabinder Singh QC, who represented CND and also participated in Tuesday's event.

Certainly the British government, he said, "has never advanced the suggestion that it is entitled to act, or right to act, contrary to international law in relation to Iraq".

The Pentagon adviser's views, he added, underlined "a divergence of view between the British govern ment and some senior voices in American public life [who] have expressed the view that, well, if it's the case that international law doesn't permit unilateral pre-emptive action without the authority of the UN, then the defect is in international law".

Mr Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House. Its main argument has been that the invasion was justified under the UN charter, which guarantees the right of each state to self-defense, including pre-emptive self-defense. On the night bombing began, in March, Mr Bush reiterated America's "sovereign authority to use force" to defeat the threat from Baghdad.

The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US and its allies were under imminent threat.

Coalition officials countered that the security council had already approved the use of force in resolution 1441, passed a year ago, warning of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to give a complete ac counting of its weapons programmes.

Other council members disagreed, but American and British lawyers argued that the threat of force had been implicit since the first Gulf war, which was ended only by a ceasefire.

"I think Perle's statement has the virtue of honesty," said Michael Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University who opposed the war, arguing that it was illegal.

"And, interestingly, I suspect a majority of the American public would have supported the invasion almost exactly to the same degree that they in fact did, had the administration said that all along."

The controversy-prone Mr Perle resigned his chairmanship of the defense policy board earlier this year but remained a member of the advisory board.

Meanwhile, there was a hint that the US was trying to find a way to release the Britons held at Guantanamo Bay.

The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, said Mr Bush was "very sensitive" to British sentiment. "We also expect to be resolving this in the near future," he told the BBC.

DanT
09-18-2004, 02:13 PM
From today's Guardian, a British newspaper:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1307529,00.html



Iraq had no WMD: the final verdict

Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday September 18, 2004
The Guardian

The comprehensive 15-month search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has concluded that the only chemical or biological agents that Saddam Hussein's regime was working on before last year's invasion were small quantities of poisons, most likely for use in assassinations.
A draft of the Iraq Survey Group's final report circulating in Washington found no sign of the alleged illegal stockpiles that the US and Britain presented as the justification for going to war, nor did it find any evidence of efforts to reconstitute Iraq's nuclear weapons programme.

It also appears to play down an interim report which suggested there was evidence that Iraq was developing "test amounts" of ricin for use in weapons. Instead, the ISG report says in its conclusion that there was evidence to suggest the Iraqi regime planned to restart its illegal weapons programmes if UN sanctions were lifted.

Charles Duelfer, the head of the ISG, has said he intends to deliver his final report by the end of the month. It is likely to become a heated issue in the election campaign.

President George Bush now admits that stockpiles have not been found in Iraq but claimed as recently as Thursday that "Saddam Hussein had the capability of making weapons, and he could have passed that capability on to the enemy".

The draft Duelfer report, according to the New York Times, finds no evidence of a capability, but only of an intention to rebuild that capability once the UN embargo had been removed and Iraq was no longer the target of intense international scrutiny.

The finding adds weight to Mr Bush's assertions on the long-term danger posed by the former Iraqi leader, but it also suggests that, contrary to the administration's claims, diplomacy and containment were working prior to the invasion.

The draft report was handed to British, US and Australian experts at a meeting in London earlier this month, according to the New York Times. It largely confirms the findings of Mr Duelfer's predecessor, David Kay, who concluded "we were almost all wrong" in thinking Saddam had stockpiled weapons. The Duelfer report goes into greater detail.

Mr Kay's earlier findings mentioned the existence of a network of laboratories run by the Iraqi intelligence service, and suggested that the regime could be producing "test amounts" of chemical weapons and researching the use of ricin in weapons.

Subsequent inspections of the clandestine labs, under Mr Duelfer's leadership, found they were capable of producing small quantities of lethal chemical and biological agents, more useful for assassinations of individuals than for inflicting mass casualties.

Mr Duelfer, according to the draft, does not exclude the possibility that some weapons materials could have been smuggled out of Iraq before the war, a possibility raised by the administration and its supporters. However, the report apparently produces no significant evidence to support the claim. Nor does it find any evidence of any action by the Saddam regime to convert dual-use industrial equipment to weapons production.

"I think we know exactly how this is going to play out," said Joseph Cirincione, a proliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

"You'll see a very elaborate spin operation. But there's not much new here from what the ISG reported before," he said. "There are still no weapons, no production of weapons and no programmes to begin the production of weapons. What we're left with here is that Saddam Hussein might have had the desire to rebuild the capability to build those weapons."

"Well, lots of people have desire for these weapons. Lots of people have intent. But that's not what we went to war for."

The motives for war, meanwhile, came under fresh scrutiny last night as the Telegraph reported that Tony Blair was warned in Foreign Office papers a year before the invasion of the scale of dealing with a post-Saddam Iraq.

The Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, Sir Menzies Campbell, said that if authenticated, the papers "demonstrate that the government agreed with the Bush administration on regime change in Iraq more than a year before military action was taken".

Mr Duelfer, who is reported to still be in Baghdad, did not respond to a request for an interview on the question of WMD yesterday.

Earlier this year, he told the Guardian that he expected his report would leave "some unanswered questions".

Loki
09-18-2004, 02:21 PM
this, of course, coming from they guy who made billions of dollars off the food for oil scam.

cute.

Brock
09-18-2004, 03:12 PM
Khofi Annan is a criminal.

jettio
09-18-2004, 03:45 PM
OK, Ironside. Where did I say that there is something wrong in telling the truth? Or even suggest so?

.


You seemed to express dismay that pissed-off generals would be quoted in the New York Times and that it might impact morale.

Seems that you objected to either that the truth was being told or that it was told in a very public forum.

I knew that Bush was a phony with the pre-war talk but who could have imagined that it would go exactly this bad.

I tell you what, considering your credibility and reputation as a poster that you have had since I joined Chiefs Planet, I am surprised that you would tolerate such extreme incompetence.

patteeu
09-18-2004, 04:20 PM
Surprisingly, I find nothing to disagree with in this post...

Ditto. Good post #10, whoman69!

KCWolfman
09-18-2004, 04:43 PM
It's notable that Richard Perle has conceded that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. The White House has tried to pretend that Iraq posed a threat to the United States sufficient enough that it warranted a preemptive attack, a claim for which no convincing evidence has been provided and which was directly refuted by the fact that we went double-digit timezones away from our nation's capital and defeated the Iraqi army in a matter of days.


Revisionism without proof.

The word "pretend" keeps the statement above from being fact.

WilliamTheIrish
09-18-2004, 04:49 PM
You seemed to express dismay that pissed-off generals would be quoted in the New York Times and that it might impact morale.

Seems that you objected to either that the truth was being told or that it was told in a very public forum.

I knew that Bush was a phony with the pre-war talk but who could have imagined that it would go exactly this bad.

I tell you what, considering your credibility and reputation as a poster that you have had since I joined Chiefs Planet, I am surprised that you would tolerate such extreme incompetence.


Bolding mine.

No, you implied that I objected to the truth. And let me qualify that statement with the truth 'as you see it.'
We haven't lost a damn thing in Iraq. We certainly haven't lost Al Queda. Al Queda has lost a lot however. Like the ability to act with impunity. Lost over 50% of it's leadership. Lost thousands of it's soldiers who felt Allah's call to fight in Iraq.
Yes they can blow up train stations in Spain. Even better they can hold Russian children hostage for a few days before slaughtering them.

Great publicity that, no?

Such great publicity that they lose their pretext of legitimacy in the eyes of anybody but the most fanatical muslim. (and apparently Sidney Blumenthal and these Generals)

They've lost the indifference of the Russians. Big no-no there. Bad move.

So no, we have not lost Al Queda. Not even close.

2) We've lost the chance at Democracy in Iraq? News to me. I didn't know democracy had quite begun yet. In 18 months the leaders of the regime have been deposed, government functions have begun and elections will take place soon.
The US isn't leaving till the place is at least stable (or partioned) and with determination the soldiers there will quash the insurgency.

As for the bolded part. I'm old enough to remember what it was like to win a war away from home but lose it in the media. Sid Blumenthal is a partisan tool and he's using folks like yourself as nails while he plays the hammer.

Look I'm not thrilled with prosecution of this war. I'm of the opinion that we should be 10 times more brutal and mash these mofo's. That does not mean I believe the US should begin nuclear carpet bombing of a billion innocents.

I AM of the belief that these people need to be given the chance to form tolerant democracies. If that fails, then I guess the carpet bombing option remains.

Better them than me and my kids.

DanT
09-18-2004, 04:57 PM
Revisionism without proof.

The word "pretend" keeps the statement above from being fact.

That's right. The word "pretend" indicates that I was expressing my opinion. My opinion that the White House knew the deal is based on the fact that we have been engaged in military operations against Iraq for over a decade, that we have spy satellites tracking them--as we had with Cuba and now Iran, when we tried to move they had stuff, that Iraq couldn't even make serious threats against the troops that were there, and they certainly couldn't make threats against America.

I understand that there are many people with a range of opinions about the threat that Iraq posed. I haven't seen anyone in our government present anything even approaching a credible, convincing case that a sufficient threat was posed to our country as to justify a preemptive war. I have certainly seen a lot of obvious propaganda planted by folks with other countries' interests closer to their hearts than America's interests that tried to act like there was something there, but I called bullsh!t on it before the war started and there hasn't been anything that has come out since that has done anything but vindicate my opinion.

Of course, as always, I am more than happy to look over any links or references that anyone has that they think contains compelling arguments and evidence to make me rethink my positions.

KCWolfman
09-18-2004, 05:07 PM
That's right. The word "pretend" indicates that I was expressing my opinion. My opinion that the White House knew the deal is based on the fact that we have been engaged in military operations against Iraq for over a decade, that we have spy satellites tracking them--as we had with Cuba and now Iran, when we tried to move they had stuff, that Iraq couldn't even make serious threats against the troops that were there, and they certainly couldn't make threats against America.

I understand that there are many people with a range of opinions about the threat that Iraq posed. I haven't seen anyone in our government present anything even approaching a credible, convincing case that a sufficient threat was posed to our country as to justify a preemptive war. I have certainly seen a lot of obvious propaganda planted by folks with other countries' interests closer to their hearts than America's interests that tried to act like there was something there, but I called bullsh!t on it before the war started and there hasn't been anything that has come out since that has done anything but vindicate my opinion.

Of course, as always, I am more than happy to look over any links or references that anyone has that they think contains compelling arguments and evidence to make me rethink my positions.

So you believe the rest of the world was pretending as well? Or do you have links or references proving they were ready to remove sanctions and apologize to Hussein?

DanT
09-18-2004, 05:12 PM
The rest of the world wasn't pretending. Apparently, a lot of them knew damn well that the claims coming out of Washington, D.C. were not convincing. That's why we are bearing the brunt of the costs and casualties.

listopencil
09-18-2004, 07:59 PM
Aww, crap. I wonder which one of the SuperFriends they're going to send over to kick our asses. Let's see...Aqua Man is still in the Justice League, but he's pretty limited on land. They have those twins with that monkey. "Wonder Twin powers activate!Form of...a United Nations resolution! Shape of...a severe warning from the Secretary General!" No, that won't work. I wonder what they'll do? Somebody call the Hall Of Justice, pronto!

whoman69
09-18-2004, 09:34 PM
I certainly can't understand the logic of Annan considering this war illegal. I was never aware that the definition for a legal war was that it was ok'd by the UN. It would certainly be preferable to have a war ok'd by the UN for the simple fact of adding troops and funding to the coalition. To me the US is well within their rights to declare war on their own. An illegal war would be like the Germans invading Poland and the Soviet Union without previously declaring war, or the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor without a declaration of war.
The French are up to their necks in guilt as they were trading arms illegally to the Iraquis for oil. The US cannot call them on it for fear of losing goodwill in Europe or because of our intelligence blunders leading to war being thrown back at us.

KCWolfman
09-18-2004, 11:31 PM
The rest of the world wasn't pretending. Apparently, a lot of them knew damn well that the claims coming out of Washington, D.C. were not convincing. That's why we are bearing the brunt of the costs and casualties.
Again, if they weren't pretending, then why have the sanctions?

jettio
09-18-2004, 11:45 PM
Bolding mine.

No, you implied that I objected to the truth. And let me qualify that statement with the truth 'as you see it.'
We haven't lost a damn thing in Iraq. We certainly haven't lost Al Queda. Al Queda has lost a lot however. Like the ability to act with impunity. Lost over 50% of it's leadership. Lost thousands of it's soldiers who felt Allah's call to fight in Iraq.
Yes they can blow up train stations in Spain. Even better they can hold Russian children hostage for a few days before slaughtering them.

Great publicity that, no?

Such great publicity that they lose their pretext of legitimacy in the eyes of anybody but the most fanatical muslim. (and apparently Sidney Blumenthal and these Generals)

They've lost the indifference of the Russians. Big no-no there. Bad move.

So no, we have not lost Al Queda. Not even close.

2) We've lost the chance at Democracy in Iraq? News to me. I didn't know democracy had quite begun yet. In 18 months the leaders of the regime have been deposed, government functions have begun and elections will take place soon.
The US isn't leaving till the place is at least stable (or partioned) and with determination the soldiers there will quash the insurgency.

As for the bolded part. I'm old enough to remember what it was like to win a war away from home but lose it in the media. Sid Blumenthal is a partisan tool and he's using folks like yourself as nails while he plays the hammer.

Look I'm not thrilled with prosecution of this war. I'm of the opinion that we should be 10 times more brutal and mash these mofo's. That does not mean I believe the US should begin nuclear carpet bombing of a billion innocents.

I AM of the belief that these people need to be given the chance to form tolerant democracies. If that fails, then I guess the carpet bombing option remains.

Better them than me and my kids.

I have no idea who this Blumenthal is that you claim that I follow.

Why is it that folks here are stunned to imagine someone that thinks for himself?

How exactly do you know the statistics of the numbers of Al Qaeda?

Seems there was a thread last week were 19 of 22 terrorists named as the worst of the worst 2 years ago are still at large and unaccounted for, I don't know if that is true or not, but it sure went unchallenged in that thread.

Since Bush is a confirmed f*cking liar, I doubt his claim that 3/4 of Al Qaeda have been captured, but if you have some good info, post a link or cite a source.

You have lost your mind if you think genocide is any solution.

There has been a major terrorist attack in the USA about 1 every three years up until Sept. 11th, 1993, 1995, 2001, and now there is a much greater effort to prevent it.

I have no fear at all of being a victim of a terrorist attack, and quite frankly, it is a disgrace to get all histrionic and hysterical and let fear expell any moral sense to where you talk about carpet bombing people if Bush's nonsensical plan fails.

That is disgraceful. If you have done anything differently in your daily life because of terrorism fears, it is only dealing with the extra precautions our government has reasonably prescribed, if the trauma of September 11th has impacted your sense of morality that badly, you need to go to church and pray more.

DanT
09-19-2004, 12:04 AM
Again, if they weren't pretending, then why have the sanctions?

The sanctions were partly in place to prevent Iraq from becoming the threat the United States government tried to pretend that Iraq was. That's why Hans Blix and Scott Ritter have both been vindicated by subsequent events.

DanT
09-19-2004, 12:13 AM
From the news wires today...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=10&u=/ap/20040918/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_no_wmd


U.S. Leaks Report of No Weapons in Iraq




Sat Sep 18,12:50 PM ET



By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent

In Washington, in the tense months before war in Iraq (news - web sites), Charles Duelfer was confident. "Of course he is developing his weapons of mass destruction," the American arms expert wrote of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).


Special Coverage


In Baghdad, however, Hans Blix was much less convinced. The U.N. weapons inspector, on the eve of the conflict, remarked sadly on the likelihood that armies would be "waging the war at a tremendous cost, and in the end find there was very little."



In the end, as a hurricane distracted Americans, as terrorist car bombings and U.S. air strikes bloodied Iraq, the findings of a Duelfer-led investigation were quietly leaked in Washington. And after 16 months of trying, what his teams have found is less than little.



In fact, the only unconventional weapon turned up in Iraq wasn't turned up by the Americans at all, but by the other side, Iraq's shadowy resistance. In May, in an incident causing no serious injuries, insurgent fighters in Baghdad rigged an old artillery shell as a roadside bomb, apparently unaware it was loaded with sarin nerve agent.



Otherwise, two or three stray shells have been discovered with traces of degraded agent — far short of the 100-500 tons of usable chemical weapons that Colin Powell (news - web sites) warned of on Feb. 5, 2003, as he sought a U.N. blessing for the U.S.-British invasion.



"Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option," the U.S. secretary of state declared that day to the U.N. Security Council.



President Bush (news - web sites)'s rationale for war — that Iraq's alleged doomsday arms posed an imminent threat — faded steadily in the months after the March 2003 invasion, as official U.S. rhetoric switched from "stockpiles" of weapons to "programs" to make them.



By Thursday, as Duelfer's upcoming report was broadly outlined to reporters in Washington, the focus had switched again, to Iraqi "intent" before the invasion — to what were described as hopes among Iraqi leaders during the Saddam regime of someday reviving Iraqi weapons-making.



Duelfer's Iraq Survey Group, some 1,200 military and intelligence specialists and support staff, had focused much of its effort on Iraq's "dual-use" chemical and biological industries — factories and laboratories whose equipment and products might be converted quickly to making weapons.



In March, in an interim report to U.S. senators, Duelfer gave an example: An agricultural center south of Baghdad that was researching bacteria potentially useful in developing anthrax weapons. But he offered no evidence of plans to use the material for anything but its standard commercial purpose, as a pesticide.



As for chemical weapons, every industrial nation, rich or developing, has plants producing chlorine, phenol and other compounds with myriad commercial uses that also could help make sulfur mustard, sarin or other poison gases.



An international watchdog agency, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, counts 4,000-5,000 such dual-use plants in scores of countries. Again, no evidence has emerged that the Iraqis planned to make weapons in theirs.



Even if they did, it would not have been easy.



Since 2002, official U.S. statements have consistently obscured the fact that the Iraqis would have remained under close, on-scene monitoring for years to come, if Blix's U.N. inspection regime had not been short-circuited by the American invasion.



Once U.N. inspectors certified that Baghdad's weapons work had ceased, U.N. economic sanctions against Iraq would have been lifted. But then the Security Council would have imposed an open-ended verification regime, whose free-ranging inspectors would have kept watch on Iraq's military-industrial complex, aided by air and water sampling technology, satellite and aerial surveillance, and monitoring of imports.



But war did intervene, and now it is Duelfer's work that looks open-ended.



The U.S. group's final report originally had been expected last March. On Thursday, reporters were told that even this new 1,500-word document may not be final, and there is no guarantee it will be released in much detail before the Nov. 2 presidential election.



In 700 inspections across Iraq, beginning in November 2002, Blix's U.N. experts also had turned up nothing. He hoped their work might stave off a costly war. In the end, in official American eyes, it counted for little.

"There was a very consistent creation of a virtual reality," he now says of the U.S. attitude. "And eventually it collided with our old-fashioned, ordinary reality."

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Charles J. Hanley has covered the hunt for weapons and the Iraq crisis since 2002.

KCWolfman
09-19-2004, 12:27 AM
The sanctions were partly in place to prevent Iraq from becoming the threat the United States government tried to pretend that Iraq was. That's why Hans Blix and Scott Ritter have both been vindicated by subsequent events.
Sanctions against weapons you stated the rest of the world said didn't exist?

Again, why have sanctions if they don't have the weapons?

DanT
09-19-2004, 12:34 AM
Sanctions against weapons you stated the rest of the world said didn't exist?

Again, why have sanctions if they don't have the weapons?

To make it more difficult for Iraq to acquire weapons.

DanT
09-19-2004, 12:38 AM
Quoted paragraphs excerpted from top of following link:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2089471

The Iraq Sanctions Worked
And other revelations from David Kay's report.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2003, at 4:08 PM PT


Listen to Fred Kaplan discuss this topic on NPR's Day to Day.

David Kay's interim report on whether Saddam Hussein had a serious program to build weapons of mass destruction—an investigation that Kay and 1,500 agents from the Pentagon's Iraq Survey Group have been conducting for three months now—is a shockingly lame piece of work.

President Bush has insisted that the report proves Saddam "was a danger to the world" and thus vindicates the war. Secretary of State Colin Powell chimed in that the Kay report left him "even more convinced … that we did the right thing."

These statements were mustered to counter criticisms from Democratic senators who, upon reading the report, proclaimed that it proves only that Bush had no basis for whipping up prewar fears of an imminent Iraqi danger.

A close reading of the actual, unclassified report—which Kay delivered as testimony on Oct. 2 to a panel of several congressional committees—reveals not only that Bush's critics are closer to the mark, but something much more significant: that Saddam wanted and, in some cases, tried to resurrect the weapons programs that he had built in the 1980s, but that the United Nations sanctions and inspections prevented him from doing so.

BigOlChiefsfan
09-19-2004, 06:49 AM
More interesting UN info:

Belmont Club - MIGA/Saddam (http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/09/war-in-west-claudia-rossett-has-long.html)

Claudia Rossett has a long article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132682,00.html) on Fox News describing the possible link between Al-Qaeda and the UN's Oil for Food Program. She focuses on the unusual role of the Malaysian Swiss Gulf and African Chamber (MIGA) in receiving millions of dollars in overpayments from Saddam Hussein in conjunction with the circumstance that its principal corporate officers are on a variety of Al-Qaeda watchlists.

As the Oil-for-Food program actually worked, however, the United Nations let Saddam choose his own business partners. The world body also kept secret the details of those contracts and the identities of the contractors, and it let Saddam graft at least $4.4 billion out of the program through manipulated contract prices, by estimates of the U.S. General Accountability Office.

Saddam's standard scam was to underprice oil sales and overpay for relief supplies, thus generating fat profits for his business partners. Many of those contractors would kick back part of the take to Saddam's regime — or divert it to whatever uses Saddam might fancy. By various accounts, those uses ranged from building palaces to buying arms to supplying Saddam's sadistic son Uday with equipment for torturing Iraqi athletes.

One of the big questions is whether any of the money skimmed from Oil-for-Food also slopped into terrorist-financing ventures such as MIGA.

The circumstantial evidence is pretty damning. Rossett describes MIGA as a "terrorist chamber of commerce". Its founder and president, Ahmed Idris Nasreddin was on a watchlist of suspected Al-Qaeda financiers, as was his business partner Youssef Nada. Another MIGA founder, who remains unindicted still runs the far-flung Hayel Saeed Anam Group of Companies (HSA) which continues to operate worldwide. The HSA was also a large player in the Oil for Food Program and handled at least $400 million in transactions for the former dictator.

The trail peters out behind the wall of confidentiality the United Nations has flung over the Oil for Food documents. But one of Rosett's resource links is to the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control, part of the Department of the Treasury.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the US Department of the Treasury administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on US foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign countries, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, and those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. OFAC acts under Presidential wartime and national emergency powers, as well as authority granted by specific legislation, to impose controls on transactions and freeze foreign assets under US jurisdiction. Many of the sanctions are based on United Nations and other international mandates, are multilateral in scope, and involve close cooperation with allied governments.

Although there is little new detail to be found there, OFAC provides a list of Specially Designated Nationals (a watchlist) available as delimited text files. There are three tables. The parent table, SDN, contains a list of blacklisted organizations, individuals and ships. There is a detail address table called ADD and a table of aliases called ALT which I whacked into SQL Server. These seem to be in the public domain and if anyone is willing to host a download site, I can email him the .BAK files. (Approximately 3 MB in size).

If we breakout the distribution of countries of blacklisted individuals (businessmen) who are on the terrorism watchlist (there are other types of watchlists) we get this (I've ommitted the those with counts smaller than 2).

Country Number in watchlist
Italy 56
Germany 12
Afghanistan 6
Switzerland 6
Pakistan 5
England 4
Belgium 3
Lebanon 3
Somalia 3
Morocco 2
Syria 2
Gaza (Palestinian Authority) 2

However, if we look at the distribution of countries of blacklisted terrorist-affiliated funding organizations we get a different, but not altogether surprising list:

Country Number in watchlist Country Number in watchlist
Somalia 22 --Iraq 2
U.A.E. 19 --Lebanon 2
Pakistan 14 --Spain 2
U.S.A. 9 --Turkey 2
Afghanistan 9 --Belgium 2
Bosnia-Herzegovina 6 --Azerbaijan 2
Liechtenstein 6 --Albania 2
Italy 6 --Algeria 2
United Kingdom 6 --Austria 2
Yemen 5 --Ethiopia 2
Sweden 4 --France 2
Switzerland 4 --Gaza Strip 2
Bahamas 4 --Georgia 2
Bangladesh 3 --Germany 2
Canada 3
Netherlands 3
West Bank 3

Though this tells us nothing about MIGA or HSA specifically it provides a suggestive statistical picture of the way in which terrorist funding (at the least the part we know about) may operate. The real surprise for me is how many of the individual terrorist moneymen are associated with Italy, Germany and Switzerland, and I wonder if there is any connection between the frequency distribution and adjacency to the Swiss border. MIGA for example, was according to the Rossett's report headquartered in Lugano, Switzerland. The second list is more suggestive of places that are either world financial centers or places where shell companies can be established without too many questions asked. Because OFAC releases a new list for each year it will be fascinating to do a time-series to see how the shape of the terrorist money funding machine has changed over the last year. Maybe not by much. The topography of the financial system does not change overnight any more than that of the hills.

Armies unconsciously return to same battlefields over the course of centuries because topography compels them to same patch of disputed ground. (Al-Anbar contains not only the Sunni towns but the smuggling routes to Syria. Falluja was a smuggling center. There's a reason people fight in particular places.) For like reason the battle over terrorist finances will probably return to the financial centers, laundering sites and multilateral organizations which are their commanding heights.

KCWolfman
09-19-2004, 08:41 AM
To make it more difficult for Iraq to acquire weapons.
I don't remember reading that before. And if that is the scenario, wouldn't the failed sanctions have to be in place at least as long as Hussein was in power and probably longer? In a Castro like situation we could have been looking at 50 years of theft by people in the UN under the guise of "sanctions".

The premise is atrocious

WilliamTheIrish
09-19-2004, 05:51 PM
I have no idea who this Blumenthal is that you claim that I follow.

Why is it that folks here are stunned to imagine someone that thinks for himself?

How exactly do you know the statistics of the numbers of Al Qaeda?

Seems there was a thread last week were 19 of 22 terrorists named as the worst of the worst 2 years ago are still at large and unaccounted for, I don't know if that is true or not, but it sure went unchallenged in that thread.

Since Bush is a confirmed f*cking liar, I doubt his claim that 3/4 of Al Qaeda have been captured, but if you have some good info, post a link or cite a source.

You have lost your mind if you think genocide is any solution.

There has been a major terrorist attack in the USA about 1 every three years up until Sept. 11th, 1993, 1995, 2001, and now there is a much greater effort to prevent it.

I have no fear at all of being a victim of a terrorist attack, and quite frankly, it is a disgrace to get all histrionic and hysterical and let fear expell any moral sense to where you talk about carpet bombing people if Bush's nonsensical plan fails.

That is disgraceful. If you have done anything differently in your daily life because of terrorism fears, it is only dealing with the extra precautions our government has reasonably prescribed, if the trauma of September 11th has impacted your sense of morality that badly, you need to go to church and pray more.

You know for a guy who spent the better part of his life in college you have a hard time comprehending much. More likely you just want somebody to argue with. So I'll play.

1) Blumenthal is partisan tool. YOU need to look him up, not me. I know what/who he is.

2) I have no idea what your talking about.

3) 19 of 22 terrorists that are most wanted. Are they just going to be picked up by the local constables in the Afghan mountains or in Algeria? I undersatnd you can waltz right into the Bekka valley and just nab anybody w/o firing a shot. Man, you make it all so simple.

4)I don't know if that is true or not This would appear to be the one statement you got correct out of the entire post.

4a) I'll dig for the source on the 50% of the AQ leadership being liquidated.
5)) I don't live in fear of a terrorist attack. Point out where I even implied that. Don't bother. You can't. But it must have sounded absolutely thrilling to write it. Made ya feel like a real lawyer.

6) Genocide. WTF do you get this shiot? Listen Ironside, it ain't genocide if they're shooting at ya. I firmly believe in quashing these... ****ing scum that hide in the name of Allah only to fire an RPG out of a mosque.

7) I have done nothing different in my life regarding terrorism. You for some reason seem to think I did or do, and if we were playing to a jury I'd bet that would have made you feel like you were starring on The Practice

8) Save the church going morality schtick routine for somebody who cares. FF'sS, you're a lawyer.

jettio
09-19-2004, 06:19 PM
You know for a guy who spent the better part of his life in college you have a hard time comprehending much. More likely you just want somebody to argue with. So I'll play.

1) Blumenthal is partisan tool. YOU need to look him up, not me. I know what/who he is.

2) I have no idea what your talking about.

3) 19 of 22 terrorists that are most wanted. Are they just going to be picked up by the local constables in the Afghan mountains or in Algeria? I undersatnd you can waltz right into the Bekka valley and just nab anybody w/o firing a shot. Man, you make it all so simple.

4) This would appear to be the one statement you got correct out of the entire post.

4a) I'll dig for the source on the 50% of the AQ leadership being liquidated.
5)) I don't live in fear of a terrorist attack. Point out where I even implied that. Don't bother. You can't. But it must have sounded absolutely thrilling to write it. Made ya feel like a real lawyer.

6) Genocide. WTF do you get this shiot? Listen Ironside, it ain't genocide if they're shooting at ya. I firmly believe in quashing these... ****ing scum that hide in the name of Allah only to fire an RPG out of a mosque.

7) I have done nothing different in my life regarding terrorism. You for some reason seem to think I did or do, and if we were playing to a jury I'd bet that would have made you feel like you were starring on The Practice

8) Save the church going morality schtick routine for somebody who cares. FF'sS, you're a lawyer.

You previous post said that somebody I had never heard of was "playing me like a hammer."

I think for myself and never heard of this person that you say manipulates me. And I don't need to know who he is.

And your line about "better them than me and my kids" after you propose carpet bombing as plan B.

WTF is that , but an expression of worry about terrorism, and using this fear as an excuse to act immorally?

Then when I challenge you on that, then you say what everybody knows and that is that you do not do anything different because of terrorism.

Better you and your retarded Stooges.

WilliamTheIrish
09-20-2004, 12:48 AM
You previous post said that somebody I had never heard of was "playing me like a hammer."

I think for myself and never heard of this person that you say manipulates me. And I don't need to know who he is.

And your line about "better them than me and my kids" after you propose carpet bombing as plan B.

WTF is that , but an expression of worry about terrorism, and using this fear as an excuse to act immorally?

Then when I challenge you on that, then you say what everybody knows and that is that you do not do anything different because of terrorism.

Better you and your retarded Stooges.

1) No I said you were a nail. Blumenthal is hitting you over the head like a hammer. Keep up.

2) Oh. How could I forget? It's just you and folks who think like you that who think for themsleves. The rest of us are just pod people following orders.

3) I believe that Islamic world has a very simple choice over the next decade. Quash the Wahabbi sect and others like it that have taken the religion and perverted it. The time is rapidly approaching when the rest of the world won't tolerate acts of schoolhouse slaughter and blowing up buildings. Especially when the Iranians go nuclear.

4) It was an attempt to construct what I believe may happen if things were to go wildly out of control. I'll say it again: Better them than me and mine.
And again. I do nothing different in my daily life regarding terrorism. Your attempt to say otherwise was weak.

5) Again, you seem to think I'm overjoyed at the prospect of voting the incumbent back into the White House. You're wrong again couselor. Like you, I think he's a pretty lousy President. For different reasons. Reasons I've stated time and again on this board.

Better you and your retarded Stooges.

Go chase an ambulance...

jettio
09-20-2004, 11:25 AM
1) No I said you were a nail. Blumenthal is hitting you over the head like a hammer. Keep up.

2) Oh. How could I forget? It's just you and folks who think like you that who think for themsleves. The rest of us are just pod people following orders.

3) I believe that Islamic world has a very simple choice over the next decade. Quash the Wahabbi sect and others like it that have taken the religion and perverted it. The time is rapidly approaching when the rest of the world won't tolerate acts of schoolhouse slaughter and blowing up buildings. Especially when the Iranians go nuclear.

4) It was an attempt to construct what I believe may happen if things were to go wildly out of control. I'll say it again: Better them than me and mine.
And again. I do nothing different in my daily life regarding terrorism. Your attempt to say otherwise was weak.

5) Again, you seem to think I'm overjoyed at the prospect of voting the incumbent back into the White House. You're wrong again couselor. Like you, I think he's a pretty lousy President. For different reasons. Reasons I've stated time and again on this board.



Go chase an ambulance...

:) .

You're still one of the Best.

I pretty much agree with you on going hard after the bad guys, but I think you have to do your best to make sure that it is clear that it is the sworn enemies that are getting it and not folks merely trying to live their lives.

Just remember me if your beef with this Blumenthal fellow gets to the point where the judicial system might be a good next step. :thumb:

WilliamTheIrish
09-20-2004, 04:54 PM
Jettio:

Sorry for being such a d!ck to you in this thread. Seems that's just the confrontational style of this side of the board.

I find myself posting less and less in this forum because I become such a jerk in here.

Your positions are absolutely worthy of respect. For me to be anything less than respectful of them is a reflection of my own character flaws.

I owe you a beer if we ever meet at a game.

jettio
09-20-2004, 07:38 PM
Jettio:

Sorry for being such a d!ck to you in this thread. Seems that's just the confrontational style of this side of the board.

I find myself posting less and less in this forum because I become such a jerk in here.

Your positions are absolutely worthy of respect. For me to be anything less than respectful of them is a reflection of my own character flaws.

I owe you a beer if we ever meet at a game.


No explanation necessary. I respect you a lot and do not take it personal if you disagree with me, and I do not feel like you were overly confrontational.

And if I addressed you personally and not just your argument, it was not intended to be disrespect.

:toast: