Al Qaeda materials found in Iraq!

[Southpaw]

Thank you for that link Sir Brass very good

[FactsOfLife]

just in case anyone really wants to know what PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKES look like...

[-Carnifex-]

That looks like an act of terrorism to me, not a pre-emptive strike. Unless you're making a tie with Saddam and the attack, in which case, CB sucks... er, I agree.

[FactsOfLife]

If you look at it from the standpoint of UBL it was certainly a pre-emptive strike on his part.

The thing that pisses me off to no end is that even after 9-11 there are still people that VEHEMENTLY protest this country's attempts to deter this from happening again.

Apparently us rousting a murdering dictator is WORSE than us getting attacked by AL Qaeda.

morons!

[-Carnifex-]

They're argument is that we have no clear-cut evidence, with which I agree. Yet these people people seem to be pendantic and lack an intuitive logic that a lot of the rest of us possess.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
They're argument is that we have no clear-cut evidence, with which I agree. Yet these people people seem to be pendantic and lack an intuitive logic that a lot of the rest of us possess.

I'm glad we can rely on your intuition to make such important decisions.....

Still I'm not going to say you are not entitled to your beliefs. The FACT is that invading Iraq MAY have stopped another terrorist attack. I won't deny that possibility. I will say, however, that I think that possibility is EXTREMELY unlikely (in my opinion).

We can justify anything by saying it MAY protect us. Still I fall back on that there is no way to seriously debate this issue. It comes down to almost an act of faith to believe that invading Iraq saved us in some way. To me it is very scary that it is an act of faith, but you really can't argue faith can you? I think the faith is misplaced, but that is only my (unfortunately fallible as much as I would like to present it otherwise) opinion.

We're there now. It is water under the bridge. Now we have to forge ahead and hope that something good comes out of it.....

[Miscue]

Is it never ok to preemptively attack? What conditions would satisfy you to justify a preemptive attack?

Saddam was a serious potential threat to the world. Was he not?

If he could hurt the U.S. and get away with it, do you think he would chose not to? Honestly? He's killed and tortured lots of people, and has demonstrated no respect for human life. Of course you could argue... why don't we just go after everyone who is like this? Well, this guy had a lot of power, money, and influence... and can be a serious problem... and that's the difference.

And he is not stupid. If he hurts us, do you think he'd tell us about it? No way, he would do this in a covert way and get his kicks when Americans oppose war against him.

Now what makes you think he would not do this if he had the chance? Sure as hell he would! He hates the US, why would he not want to hurt us? And he can! The only thing stopping him is his conscience. What else is there to stop him? Nothing!

This guy had sons and military that tortures people, rapes women, etc... and this is acceptable! He was a professional thug and has killed lots of people before even gaining power, that's how he got there! He's mass murdered a lot of people. Now, what about Saddam's conscience makes you think he would not attack the US somehow if he had the chance? All he has to do is give money and gear to the right people, he doesn't even need to dirty his own hands. It's very easy for him to do.

You have a lifelong criminal and murderer... and he has a LOT of money! He has a lot of weapons! He hates the US! He's connected with people who hate the US too! Now WHY would he NOT attack us if he had the chance?

HE WOULD! And he HAS!

Nobody can prove to you that, if you walk next to a cobra it will try to bite you and kill you - that is predicting an uncertain future. It might be a good natured cobra for all we know, right? Now you can walk near it if you want to, because of a lack of proof. But I'll preemptively attack and kill that sucker before it has the chance to strike - and it ain't going to warn me when it does.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Miscue
Nobody can prove to you that, if you walk next to a cobra it will try to bite you and kill you - that is predicting an uncertain future. It might be a good natured cobra for all we know, right? Now you can walk near it if you want to, because of a lack of proof. But I'll preemptively attack and kill that sucker before it has the chance to strike - and it ain't going to warn me when it does.

Very good analogy! Yes, you look at his nature. You look at Saddam's previous funding of terrorism. Terrorists can't do anything without money!!!! Maybe Saddam did not plan or direct the terrorist operations, but he very likely funded some! Cutting off that funding is a blow to terrorism!

[shartley]

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by shartley

Like I said. Nobody is going to prove anything here. But I agree with what you say above. BUT why then do we suddenly choose NOT to listen to our intelligence officers when it doesn't meet the goals of the administration? Why do we cite British intelligence in a speech to the nation about WMD because our own intelligence officers are unwilling to back the claim?

Oh I forgot. They have 007 so we should listen to them more than our own.

Like I said. This is a moot point. We are there now. But don't tell me this whole thing hasn't left you with some serious questions of what is going on. We were told that the danger was imminent, that there were WMD waiting to be used against us. Now we find out that our own intelligence community didn't have any evidence? Shouldn't we trust our own intelligence officers?

[shartley]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


Like I said. Nobody is going to prove anything here. But I agree with what you say above. BUT why then do we suddenly choose NOT to listen to our intelligence officers when it doesn't meet the goals of the administration? Why do we cite British intelligence in a speech to the nation about WMD because our own intelligence officers are unwilling to back the claim?

Oh I forgot. They have 007 so we should listen to them more than our own.

Like I said. This is a moot point. We are there now. But don't tell me this whole thing hasn't left you with some serious questions of what is going on. We were told that the danger was imminent, that there were WMD waiting to be used against us. Now we find out that our own intelligence community didn't have any evidence? Shouldn't we trust our own intelligence officers?

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by shartley

Hindsight is 20/20 unfortunately. And Monday Night Quarterbacking is an easy thing to do to prove any point a person WANTS to prove.

True enough..... Also let's just say for a second that invading Iraq is the RIGHT thing to do for other reasons than immediate national security. Let's say that stabilizing the region with a democracy will change the character of the middle east. No one can argue that it isn't a real possibility. That is a BOLD vision (I won't argue that point).

All of the above may be true, BUT that wasn't what the American people were presented with. We were presented with an imminent threat that so far we have not seen. Of course I am not so niave to think that what is presented to the American people will always be ALL the motivations (it just doesn't work that way). BUT I'm still going to question what is REALLY going on. That is my responsibility as a citizen.

I don't sit on the board and say, "Iraq can never be a democracy." My point is I'm watching what is going on and I'm not liking all I'm seeing. It would be the same if any party were in power. Our system is one of checks and balances. Founded on the belief that ultimate power corrupts. So lets watchdog our administration......it is what we are supposed to do......

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by aaron_mag

Oh I forgot. They have 007 so we should listen to them more than our own.

Of course we should. Haven't you seen how many times Bond has save the world? Jeesh!

[shartley]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
True enough..... Also let's just say for a second that invading Iraq is the RIGHT thing to do for other reasons than immediate national security. Let's say that stabilizing the region with a democracy will change the character of the middle east. No one can argue that it isn't a real possibility. That is a BOLD vision (I won't argue that point).

All of the above may be true, BUT that wasn't what the American people were presented with. We were presented with an imminent threat that so far we have not seen. Of course I am not so niave to think that what is presented to the American people will always be ALL the motivations (it just doesn't work that way). BUT I'm still going to question what is REALLY going on. That is my responsibility as a citizen.

I don't sit on the board and say, "Iraq can never be a democracy." My point is I'm watching what is going on and I'm not liking all I'm seeing. It would be the same if any party were in power. Our system is one of checks and balances. Founded on the belief that ultimate power corrupts. So lets watchdog our administration......it is what we are supposed to do......

[1stdeadeye]

Proof! You want proof!

Here is your proof that France was "in bed" with Saddam:



Here is CB's proof that we are wrong:



I win!!!!!!