The day the terrorists won....

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife
Oh here we go with the Unilateral BS again. Hey, go ask the people in Madrid if they thought the US was acting Unilaterally.

"With us or against us."
Followed with we're going in whether you follow or not.
Pretty unilateral to me.

The Brit's are often US lapdogs when it come to military action, with the politicians afraid of being "left behind" if they don't participate. All the other members on the "international" force are more hangers-on looking to benefit from economic fallout and contracts.

A world organisation can't find WMD, the US can't provide intelligence to the inspectors so that they find any, and now that the US has taken over the country there still hasn't been anything found.

But all of this is hijacking the original thread.

The attack in Spain was awful. THOSE terrorists should be caught and punished. The people who helped them should be caught and punished.

The laughable thing is that everyone who's so adamant about the war in Iraq being a good thing seems to overlook that NONE of these terrorists came from there and the war there has done nothing to stop those responsible.

For the safety of Spain and Europe it would probably be very much in their interest to not be involved in Iraq in any way. They would be much safer watching their own borders and pursuing the terrorists in Morocco.

The US would probably be far safer if they forced the Saudis to come clean and stop helping Al-Qaeda and others.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast

The US would probably be far safer if they forced the Saudis to come clean and stop helping Al-Qaeda and others.

Not to mention focusing on Afghanistan and catching Osama Bin Laden BEFORE we went on this Iraq binge....

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
Not to mention focusing on Afghanistan and catching Osama Bin Laden BEFORE we went on this Iraq binge....

Finishing what you start.

Now there's an interesting concept.

Think my wife has been trying to get me to think that way about home projects.

But kidding aside, just one decent pluralistic democracy in the area would do more for world peace than any number of wars.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast


"With us or against us."
Followed with we're going in whether you follow or not.
Pretty unilateral to me.

Way to twist the meaning of the bush doctrine to suit your pathetic argument.


You know better than that.

[Rooster]

"Destroy the likes of Bin Laden and the Al-Quida leadership. But make sure that the average arab, afgani, or iraqi is helped out of any situation that would make them fall victim to following Al-Quida in the first place."

Helped out of any situation? What have they done to deserve my help? What they need is an object lesson. Do this and you live. Do this and you die. Slowly.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife
Way to twist the meaning of the bush doctrine to suit your pathetic argument.

Twist? Really? Me?:o

What's to twist? The policy was agree with me or not, I'll do whatever I want.

The US government failed to produce any proof of WMD before invading Iraq, or at least while CLAIMING to have proof was incapable of pointing the way for the UN weapons inspectors. Then after trying to convince the UN to sanction a war despite a complete lack of substantiated evidence, went ahead anyways.

What's to twist?

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by Rooster
Helped out of any situation? What have they done to deserve my help? What they need is an object lesson. Do this and you live. Do this and you die. Slowly.

And under similar situation you'd do everything to fight that kind of opression.

Great world view Rooster.

Same pathetic approach that has prisons in the US full and US crime rates higher than anywhere else.

Wash your hands completely of the reason behind the misery and desperation.

By that reasoning, no-one should every help the US with anything as it's your problem not ours. Next time 9/11 happens, land all your planes in the atlantic ...

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata
But on your other point, where do we draw the line from between ruling with an iron fist, and with a loving hand.

At our safety, that's where. I really don't care what happens in other countries so long as there are no security concerns here. I'm happy to put down a tyrant and all that, but I really only start caring when there's some kind of threat to us.

Because despite what alot of people want, we can't just kill everyone that disagrees or threatens us. And I am certain that you know that Newt.

I don't care about people that disagree with us. I bear them no ill will.

But, we CAN kill all the people that intend us harm. There is a finite number of them and the more we kill the harder it is to find new ones. When we dismantle the terror infrstructure it is hard to replace. So I'd say I disagree on that. It is certainly possible to kill and destroy enough enemies and their infrastructure to stop the attacks.

And diplomacy can only go so far. It is hard enough convincing any of you conservatives to even consider a liberal idea. And I can only imagine how hard it would be to deal when one group has an extreme hatred for the other, and share ideals which are polar opposites.

We really don't mind diplomacy, see Libya for an example. It's just that once it becomes obvious it isn't working we invade. Unlike the culture of peace liberals who just keep on trusting diplomacy even when the enemy is building nukes.

You truly need someone who is will use force when necassary, but will attempt to exhaust all other potential ways first.

True. The problem is when have you exhausted all possible other avenues?

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SlartyBartFast
Well, I suppose it's a small step that you don't blame "liberals" for all ills. But resorting to simplistic ideology and labeling is still pathetic. As you alluded to yourself, strict adherance to dagma is what causes many of these problems in the first place.

The culture of peace left has taken violance off the table and relies solely on appeasement, which will never ever work. Period.

While appeasement is wrong so too is oppression and totalitarianism. Israel certainly hasn't appeased the Palestinians, yet their problems aren't about to disappear.

Israel tried to appease the Palestinians, but not 100%. They tried a compromise and it failed, several times. Now they will unilaterally disengage, which i have been saying for years is what they should do. They don't really oppress the Palestinians though, they just keep them out of their country as best they can. That isn't oppression, it's self defense. It can be argued that when they roll into Palestinian territory to dismantle terror that they are opressing, but I don't think it's the case.

It's also childish and simplistic to think that you can't be hard on terrorists and criminals while at the same time working towards social justice.

I can do it, but the culture of peace left can't. Because they can't bring themselves to judge the terrorists and criminals as evil so they can't combat them.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SlartyBartFast
Now that you've laid down your analysis of thousands of issues over 20 years of history and firmly defined that the rest of the world is wrong, guesss there's little else to debate.

Well, France is wrong.

Always.

Never right.

Ever.

Now, moving along.

So, the ilk that want military action don't need to look for balance because they've stereotyped their opponents as unbalanced. Very logical reasoning.

So false. Look at Libya. We required no military action to disarm them, but it was the military action that brought them to the table.

All we're saying is that sometimes you need to kick the heck out of a bully so the rest of them know what happens.

It's a little like lumping any and all statements against government policy as being un-American. With us or against us, no room for diversity or discussion.

There are a lot of the anti-war speeches that I do deam anti-American. Mostly the kind of stuff where someone goes to Iraq to show that Bush is wrong. Those people need to be strapped onto a Daisy cutter.

It's ok to disagree, and certainly not Un-American, but there are limits.

Is there any doubt as to why there are so many that view armed conflict as the only solution?

You're not being fair, we don't view armed conflict as the only solution. That's why it took 18 months to go to war in the first place. That's why Syria and Iran still exist, because we don't just solve every problem with our tanks.

[shartley]

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast


Twist? Really? Me?:o

What's to twist? The policy was agree with me or not, I'll do whatever I want.

The US government failed to produce any proof of WMD before invading Iraq, or at least while CLAIMING to have proof was incapable of pointing the way for the UN weapons inspectors. Then after trying to convince the UN to sanction a war despite a complete lack of substantiated evidence, went ahead anyways.

What's to twist?

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast


And under similar situation you'd do everything to fight that kind of opression.

Great world view Rooster.

Same pathetic approach that has prisons in the US full and US crime rates higher than anywhere else.

Wash your hands completely of the reason behind the misery and desperation.

By that reasoning, no-one should every help the US with anything as it's your problem not ours. Next time 9/11 happens, land all your planes in the atlantic ...

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by cphilip
The newest "Third Riech" has risen. In the form of Muslim Extremists. And its time we all realized it.

Just on a related note, look for a return to fascism in Europe and here too if some of these things aren't sorted out, mainly border issues.

If the immigration in Europe of poor Muslims isn't dealt with soon we're going to see a cultural war the likes of which we haven't seen since WWII.

And in America the Mexico border problem may lead to a similiar epoch.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by shartley

Study after study has shown that punishment has little to no effect on either the number of first time offenses or the number of repeat offenses.

And rehabilitation involves actual work. Most "tough" US states simply lock criminals up and then let them out when their time is up. That ain't rehab. It's actually schooling for criminals as people get sent for hard time for more and more minor offenses and come out as deciples of hardened criminals on the inside.

See:http://www.nfb.ca/themanwhostudiesmurder/ if you ever get the chance.

(boy has this thread been diverted)

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by shartley

Cute.

"Let us invade Iraq. They have WMD, trust us."

The only others making the claims with any vigour were the Brit's. And they plagerised the same college essay the US did.

But, then again the whole diplomatic attack on Saddam was laughable from the outset. The condition to not be invaded was to porve that he DIDN'T have banned weapons.

Anyone with a brain cell knows that it's near impossible to prove a negative.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast


Twist? Really? Me?:o

What's to twist? The policy was agree with me or not, I'll do whatever I want.

The US government failed to produce any proof of WMD before invading Iraq, or at least while CLAIMING to have proof was incapable of pointing the way for the UN weapons inspectors. Then after trying to convince the UN to sanction a war despite a complete lack of substantiated evidence, went ahead anyways.

What's to twist?

I would have thought that we had lain this nonsense to rest but apparently some people still need an education on the matter.

Your points in order:

1. the Bush doctrine that you so eloquently distilled does not define the "against us" part as those countries like france, Germany, and now Spain.

You know, but don't seem to want to admit, that the fact is, it was pointed at those countries harboring terrorists. I.E. Syria, Palestine, Libya etc. etc. Don't be mentally bankrupt for the sake of being cute.

It was directly from the start aimed at those countries and not in any way shape or form there to put pressure on those U.N. countries that felt the need to shirk their obligations in this war.

2. The US and specifically UN resolution 1441 was VERY clear on the matter. Either fess up your programs or there were going to be consequences. Every one of the countries on the UN Security council agreed to this.

Apparently, a few of them were empty promises made by several European countries.

They have a LOT to answer for.

The US merely stood up to it's responsibilities(I know hoiw you libs hate that word) and removed one of the worlds worst dictators. Funny how you didn't have any problems in Bosnia-Herzogovenia whilst Clinton was in charge. I guess war's only ok as long as a democrat is in the White House?

The fact that we have yet to find WMD's is immaterial. Saddam had 12 years to hide them, move them out of country or even destroy them. The fact that the UN weapins inspectors were so monumentally incompetant has only delayed their disovery.

They, the WMD's were there by your own admission. He used them to gas his own people. Maybe you'd care to explain where they are now? Or if they were destroyed, why wouldn't Hussein in the face of overwhelming pressure and threat of a major league asswhipping, say HERE THEY ARE! Or, here 's the evidence of destruction?

can't have it both ways, although you certainly do try.