PDA

View Full Version : ON TONIGHT: "Hubris": New Documentary Reexamines the Iraq War "Hoax"



Cigar
02-18-2013, 03:25 PM
"Hubris": New Documentary Reexamines the Iraq War "Hoax"http://mjcdn.motherjones.com/preset_12/bushhubris425x320.gif

A decade ago, on March 19, 2003, President George W. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq that would lead to a nine-year war resulting in 4,486 dead American troops, 32,226 service members wounded, and over 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians. The tab for the war topped $3 trillion. Bush did succeed in removing Saddam Hussein, but it turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction and no significant operational ties between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda. That is, the two main assertions used by Bush and his crew to justify the war were not true. Three years after the war began, Michael Isikoff, then an investigative reporter for Newsweek (he's since moved to NBC News), and I published Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (http://www.amazon.com/Hubris-Inside-Story-Scandal-Selling/dp/030734682X), a behind-the-scenes account of how Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their lieutenants deployed false claims, iffy intelligence, and unsupported hyperbole to win popular backing for the invasion.


One chilling moment in the film comes in an interview with retired General Anthony Zinni, a former commander in chief of US Central Command. In August 2002, the Bush-Cheney administration opened its propaganda campaign for war with a Cheney speech at the annual Veterans of Foreign Wars convention. The veep made a stark declaration: "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." No doubt, he proclaimed, Saddam was arming himself with WMD in preparation for attacking the United States.
Zinni was sitting on the stage during the speech, and in the documentary he recalls his reaction:

It was a shock. It was a total shock. I couldn't believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program. And that's when I began to believe they're getting serious about this. They wanna go into Iraq.

That Zinni quote should almost end the debate on whether the Bush-Cheney administration purposefully guided the nation into war with misinformation and disinformation.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/hubris-rachel-maddow-documentary-iraq-war-david-corn

Now you want to talk about a LIAR !

Ready ... Set ... Deny

Peter1469
02-18-2013, 04:06 PM
The truth was that Iraq had WMD programs in moth balls ready to go as soon as the sanctions were over. Also, we know that convoys left Iraq for Syria prior to the invasion. The commander of the Iraqi Air Force said those convoys carried WMD.

Other Arab nations told the US that our troops would be hit with chemical munitions if we invade.

I was at the tip of the spear in the far western flanking movement. We went into Iraq a day before the ground war and were 35 miles inside Iraq when the real party started. On our 2nd or third day in Iraq we attacked a complex defensive line on a ridge line. That is where we took our only KIA. I captured several bunkers, one which was booby trapped and stacked full for 60mm mortar rounds which were marked with US chemical warnings. There were hundreds of rounds.

So don't tell me that Saddam didn't have WMD.

keymanjim
02-18-2013, 04:11 PM
It must have broken your heart when WMD's were found in Iraq.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/

bladimz
02-18-2013, 04:21 PM
Looking forward to Maddow's show tonight. I hope she especially takes aim at Dick.

keymanjim
02-18-2013, 06:19 PM
Looking forward to Maddow's show tonight. I hope she especially takes aim at Dick.
She always struck me as a carpet-muncher.

zelmo1234
02-18-2013, 06:27 PM
It is hard to take something real seriously when it the first line there is a out right lie.

Stated that the cost of the Iraq is over 3 trillion.

http://costofwar.com/

Adding in the cost of war in Afganistan, and you are still not even half way their. Kind of makes everything else that he has to say BE does it not!

Cigar
02-18-2013, 08:41 PM
I have to admit, this thread served it purpose.

If it wasn't so tragic it would humerious, but it is really sad.

People in politics and on this forum will whine about what the President said after, not before, 4 Americans got killed. But will walk in lock step and see nothing wrong about a lie before sending 4k Americans off to die. Yes folks, American treasure gone over what WMDs and how much if any?

Yes folks, just read the justification over Iraq, the read the outrage over Libia.

Really folk, 4 dead before a President said something; 4k dead after a President lied.

Carry on.

Chris
02-18-2013, 09:05 PM
I have to admit, this thread served it purpose.

If it wasn't so tragic it would humerious, but it is really sad.

People in politics and on this forum will whine about what the President said after, not before, 4 Americans got killed. But will walk in lock step and see nothing wrong about a lie before sending 4k Americans off to die. Yes folks, American treasure gone over what WMDs and how much if any?

Yes folks, just read the justification over Iraq, the read the outrage over Libia.

Really folk, 4 dead before a President said something; 4k dead after a President lied.

Carry on.

And what purpose was that?

Bigred1cav
02-18-2013, 09:31 PM
Read a reliable news source and weep:

Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629)http://thepoliticalforums.com/chrome-extension://jmfkcklnlgedgbglfkkgedjfmejoahla/content/Icons/unknown.gifwww.reuters.com/article/.../us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629
Jun 29, 2011 – Staggering as it is, that figure grossly underestimates the total cost ofwars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the U.S. Treasury and ignores ...

Chris
02-18-2013, 09:38 PM
Read a reliable news source and weep:

Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629)http://thepoliticalforums.com/chrome-extension://jmfkcklnlgedgbglfkkgedjfmejoahla/content/Icons/unknown.gifwww.reuters.com/article/.../us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629
Jun 29, 2011 – Staggering as it is, that figure grossly underestimates the total cost ofwars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the U.S. Treasury and ignores ...

War is a Racket!
~Major General Smedley Butler

Cigar
02-18-2013, 09:54 PM
Wow; what a pack of lies from multiple sources by multiple sources.

No wonder Powell turned.

And there are people going crazy over Libia after the fact.

Wow, just wow.

Chloe
02-18-2013, 09:56 PM
The truth was that Iraq had WMD programs in moth balls ready to go as soon as the sanctions were over. Also, we know that convoys left Iraq for Syria prior to the invasion. The commander of the Iraqi Air Force said those convoys carried WMD.

Other Arab nations told the US that our troops would be hit with chemical munitions if we invade.

I was at the tip of the spear in the far western flanking movement. We went into Iraq a day before the ground war and were 35 miles inside Iraq when the real party started. On our 2nd or third day in Iraq we attacked a complex defensive line on a ridge line. That is where we took our only KIA. I captured several bunkers, one which was booby trapped and stacked full for 60mm mortar rounds which were marked with US chemical warnings. There were hundreds of rounds.

So don't tell me that Saddam didn't have WMD.

Can I ask you though if you think what you saw was worth going to war over for so many years?

Peter1469
02-18-2013, 10:02 PM
Can I ask you though if you think what you saw was worth going to war over for so many years? The war yes. The occupation was a waste of time. Colin Powell is the one who came up with the quaint phrase that if you break it you own it. The United States is not inside Pottery Barn with some snot nosed brat who breaks an expensive thing. The US is a sovereign nation and if we chose to break another nation- that is just tough shit for that nation. We have zero obligation to fix it. Had we gone in and removed Saddam and left one of his generals in charge Bush would be seen as a military genius today. Read Thunder Run about how we crushed the Iraqi army - and by extension had we left then less than 1000 American casualties would there be. No modern army can stand up to US forces in conventional combat. Colin Powell is a good man; but his doctrine has harmed the United States.

Chloe
02-18-2013, 10:04 PM
The war yes. The occupation was a waste of time.

Colin Powell is the one who came up with the quaint phrase that if you break it you own it.

The United States is not inside Pottery Barn with some snot nosed brat who breaks an expensive thing. The US is a sovereign nation and if we chose to break another nation- that is just tough shit for that nation. We have zero obligation to fix it. Had we gone in and removed Saddam and left one of his generals in charge Bush would be seen as a military genius today. Read Thunder Run about how we crushed the Iraqi army - and by extension had we left less than 1000 American casualties would there be.

No modern army can stand up to US forces in conventional combat.

Colin Powell is a good man; but his doctrine has harmed the United States.

Really? Even though so many people have said that there wasn't ever a real danger from them and how it wasn't part of the september 11th attacks?

Peter1469
02-18-2013, 10:07 PM
Really? Even though so many people have said that there wasn't ever a real danger from them and how it wasn't part of the september 11th attacks?

There was a danger. The French were providing them WMD help- at least French companies. Bush didn't make a big deal out of it because they are allies.

My unit seized tons of Yellow Cake in 2008.

Don't believe the news.

Z posted this earlier:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/

Chris
02-18-2013, 10:11 PM
The war yes. The occupation was a waste of time. Colin Powell is the one who came up with the quaint phrase that if you break it you own it. The United States is not inside Pottery Barn with some snot nosed brat who breaks an expensive thing. The US is a sovereign nation and if we chose to break another nation- that is just tough shit for that nation. We have zero obligation to fix it. Had we gone in and removed Saddam and left one of his generals in charge Bush would be seen as a military genius today. Read Thunder Run about how we crushed the Iraqi army - and by extension had we left then less than 1000 American casualties would there be. No modern army can stand up to US forces in conventional combat. Colin Powell is a good man; but his doctrine has harmed the United States.

Bush the Older and Schwarzkopf were wiser not to take Baghdad for that reason.

Chris
02-18-2013, 10:15 PM
Really? Even though so many people have said that there wasn't ever a real danger from them and how it wasn't part of the september 11th attacks?

What would you do if you were President, President Chloe, first woman President--what would you do with reports Sadam had the potential, even if they were sketchy, even if you weren't absolutely sure, to harm Americans? That's a heavy responsibility.

Chloe
02-18-2013, 10:17 PM
What would you do if you were President, President Chloe, first woman President--what would you do with reports Sadam had the potential, even if they were sketchy, even if you weren't absolutely sure, to harm Americans? That's a heavy responsibility.

I probably wouldn't haven't gone to war

Cigar
02-18-2013, 10:18 PM
There was a danger. The French were providing them WMD help- at least French companies. Bush didn't make a big deal out of it because they are allies.

My unit seized tons of Yellow Cake in 2008.

Don't believe the news.

Z posted this earlier:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/


Ok, so what "you" are saying is, everyone in ths show, Domocrat and Republican are liars. So, are you also willing to say, these lies are far greater than any supposed Libia lie? Because these lies are tired to more the 4k US deaths and over 100k injerires on both sides.

So, what's more important?

You say Powell is a liar, so shouldn't the American people knw why?

You say Obama lied, but way after deaths.

So, what's more important to you?

Talk to you tomorrow.

Chris
02-18-2013, 10:20 PM
I probably wouldn't haven't gone to war

And risk American lives?

Captain Obvious
02-18-2013, 10:20 PM
Libtards have selective memories.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0

Chloe
02-18-2013, 10:24 PM
And risk American lives?

A lot of people hate Americans but it doesn't mean we go around fighting them

Chris
02-18-2013, 10:25 PM
A lot of people hate Americans but it doesn't mean we go around fighting them

Well, I'm talking lives, but I appreciate your answer.

Chloe
02-18-2013, 10:26 PM
Well, I'm talking lives, but I appreciate your answer.

Doesn't going to war risk more lives on all sides though?

Chris
02-18-2013, 10:27 PM
Ok, so what "you" are saying is, everyone in ths show, Domocrat and Republican are liars. So, are you also willing to say, these lies are far greater than any supposed Libia lie? Because these lies are tired to more the 4k US deaths and over 100k injerires on both sides.

So, what's more important?

You say Powell is a liar, so shouldn't the American people knw why?

You say Obama lied, but way after deaths.

So, what's more important to you?

Talk to you tomorrow.

Well, once you're done watching, let us know how what all those people believe establishes the truth of whether Bush deliberately lied, being wrong is not lying, you know, so if all they establish is he was wrong, it doesn't show deliberate intent to lie.

Chris
02-18-2013, 10:31 PM
Doesn't going to war risk more lives on all sides though?

But isn't war justified in defending lives? Isn't it self-defense?

Know about Just War theory? Back then, at the time, I believed he was wrong, but in a long argument approaching it from a just war point of view I conceded it was justified.

Here's a very brief summary: Principles of the Just War (https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm).

Chloe
02-18-2013, 10:36 PM
But isn't war justified in defending lives? Isn't it self-defense?

Know about Just War theory? Back then, at the time, I believed he was wrong, but in a long argument approaching it from a just war point of view I conceded it was justified.

Here's a very brief summary: Principles of the Just War (https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm).

It is unless you start it. We invaded them.

Peter1469
02-18-2013, 10:39 PM
Ok, so what "you" are saying is, everyone in ths show, Domocrat and Republican are liars. So, are you also willing to say, these lies are far greater than any supposed Libia lie? Because these lies are tired to more the 4k US deaths and over 100k injerires on both sides.

So, what's more important?

You say Powell is a liar, so shouldn't the American people knw why?

You say Obama lied, but way after deaths.

So, what's more important to you?

Talk to you tomorrow.

I didn't say that Powell was a liar- said his war-fighting doctrine was b.s.

I did say that Obama did lie about Benghazi- at least until the election was over. They still have not come clean. Not one of the survivors have testified before Congress, despite repeated attempt to secure that testimony.

I likely won't have time to discuss until Thursday night-

Chris
02-18-2013, 10:48 PM
It is unless you start it. We invaded them.

They threatened us.

Agravan
02-18-2013, 11:36 PM
Doesn't going to war risk more lives on all sides though?

Sp, chloe, how many American lives lost would you find acceptable? What would be the minimun number of lives that you would sacrifice before going to war?

remember, we gave Saddam 10 years to comply with the cease-fire after the first Gulf War. His forces tried to shoot down Americans and Allied forces every day until the invasion. The invasion itself was just a continuance of the original war. Just like North Korea today, we are not at peace with them, we just have a cease fire.

zelmo1234
02-19-2013, 03:10 AM
I probably wouldn't haven't gone to war

I know that you can not rememver it, but the nation wasalso very scared at the time, as we had just witnessed the worst attack on US soil and nearly 3500 inocent US citizens had died.

And here is another question, why is it that President Obama, while claiming to have ended the war, still has thousands of troops, in both countires, and even after 4 years has not ended these wars, but actually started another one, in Lybia, but the liberals are silent about his participation. In Iraq, he has turned most of the combat type missions over to provate contractors, which are 20 times more expensive than the US military, and he will do the same thing in Afganistan.

By the way, how many people know that there have been more military deaths in afganistan under the Obama administration than under Bush, and yet the silence from the left speaks volumes. Why is it that thes self rightious people like Cigar are so concerned about why Bush lied to us and got us into these illegal wars, When he went to the UN several times and got 2 votes from congress, but when Obama attacked Lybian civilians with drones and aircraft with No permission from congress and no un resolution, they were silent.

Obama has not pulled out of Iraq, and will not pull troops out of Iraq, and he has excalated the war in Afganistan, yet not one word against him by the same people that put together this rag. piece on what they think might have happened!

zelmo1234
02-19-2013, 03:15 AM
Doesn't going to war risk more lives on all sides though?

Do you really believe that if you just let evil people that want nothing more than to see events like 911 on TV and to have Americans live in fear, If you leve these people alone, that they will leave you alone.

OUr culture, especially in the age of Facebook and twitter, represents an end to their chosen, and they believe God ordered way of life. You represent an end to everything that they hold dear, just by living your life.

Or are you willing to chage your life to accomidate them? If not then they would prefer that you stop breathing in the most violent way possible.

Chloe
02-19-2013, 05:52 AM
They threatened us.

A lot of people and countries threaten us, but it doesn't mean you go to war with them for it in my opinion.

Peter1469
02-19-2013, 05:54 AM
Sp, chloe, how many American lives lost would you find acceptable? What would be the minimun number of lives that you would sacrifice before going to war?

remember, we gave Saddam 10 years to comply with the cease-fire after the first Gulf War. His forces tried to shoot down Americans and Allied forces every day until the invasion. The invasion itself was just a continuance of the original war. Just like North Korea today, we are not at peace with them, we just have a cease fire.

To play the devils advocate, the original cease fire was under the authority of the United Nations, so technically, the US could not unilaterally assert violations of that agreement as a reason to invade Iraq in 2003.

Chloe
02-19-2013, 05:56 AM
Sp, chloe, how many American lives lost would you find acceptable? What would be the minimun number of lives that you would sacrifice before going to war?

remember, we gave Saddam 10 years to comply with the cease-fire after the first Gulf War. His forces tried to shoot down Americans and Allied forces every day until the invasion. The invasion itself was just a continuance of the original war. Just like North Korea today, we are not at peace with them, we just have a cease fire.

People died in the september 11th attack sure but from my knowledge that had nothing to do with iraq or saddam hussein. Based on what I know the united nations was against going to war with iraq and they were the ones who created the rules against them about things like nuclear weapons and stuff like that. We decided to then invade and go to war with them because it was part of the war on terrorism and not because any sort of continuation of the original war. But iraq had nothing to do with the september 11th attacks which is probably why people think that lies got us involved over there.

Peter1469
02-19-2013, 05:58 AM
The idea was that if Saddam had WMD, he would likely give some to terrorists who would then use them on us.

Chloe
02-19-2013, 05:58 AM
I know that you can not rememver it, but the nation wasalso very scared at the time, as we had just witnessed the worst attack on US soil and nearly 3500 inocent US citizens had died.

And here is another question, why is it that President Obama, while claiming to have ended the war, still has thousands of troops, in both countires, and even after 4 years has not ended these wars, but actually started another one, in Lybia, but the liberals are silent about his participation. In Iraq, he has turned most of the combat type missions over to provate contractors, which are 20 times more expensive than the US military, and he will do the same thing in Afganistan.

By the way, how many people know that there have been more military deaths in afganistan under the Obama administration than under Bush, and yet the silence from the left speaks volumes. Why is it that thes self rightious people like Cigar are so concerned about why Bush lied to us and got us into these illegal wars, When he went to the UN several times and got 2 votes from congress, but when Obama attacked Lybian civilians with drones and aircraft with No permission from congress and no un resolution, they were silent.

Obama has not pulled out of Iraq, and will not pull troops out of Iraq, and he has excalated the war in Afganistan, yet not one word against him by the same people that put together this rag. piece on what they think might have happened!

I'm sorry but simply being scared of something isn't a reason to go to war. How scared do you think the people living in Iraq were when we attacked them? I'm sure it was 10 times worse than what people here felt on setpember 11th since it wasn't just a few attacks it was an invasion of their country.

Chloe
02-19-2013, 06:04 AM
The idea was that if Saddam had WMD, he would likely give some to terrorists who would then use them on us.

Considering how many weapons we send around the world I think the odds of our own stuff being used against us is more realistic.

Chloe
02-19-2013, 06:10 AM
it's been a long night and now it's bed time. Goodnight!

Peter1469
02-19-2013, 06:10 AM
Considering how many weapons we send around the world I think the odds of our own stuff being used against us is more realistic.


True

zelmo1234
02-19-2013, 06:49 AM
I'm sorry but simply being scared of something isn't a reason to go to war. How scared do you think the people living in Iraq were when we attacked them? I'm sure it was 10 times worse than what people here felt on setpember 11th since it wasn't just a few attacks it was an invasion of their country.

Yes! they had is so good under their leaders

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/11/saddam-hussein-adjudged-serial-mass-murder

We likely saved lives by riding the world of this monster, not to mention his wonderful sons

http://www.editinternational.com/read.php?id=47ddcef722fca

Great Guy this one.

If Evil is left unchecked it grows, the policy that you are talking about has a name it is called Apeasement, and it has lead to both World Wars, and the exterminations of hundreds of millions of people around the world.

But this is the choice that the passive will often take. because war is by definition hell!

Chris
02-19-2013, 06:56 AM
A lot of people and countries threaten us, but it doesn't mean you go to war with them for it in my opinion.

At what point does the threat cross the line for you?

Cigar
02-19-2013, 08:02 AM
There was a danger. The French were providing them WMD help- at least French companies. Bush didn't make a big deal out of it because they are allies.

My unit seized tons of Yellow Cake in 2008.

Don't believe the news.

Z posted this earlier:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/



OK so let me get this straight ... everyone in the Documentary were liars, both within the Bush Administration, all the intelligence agencies, all the writers and researchers.

Wow ... you'd think that would be a bigger story than what anyone said after the Libya attack.

I wonder if that all got together to their lies straight or was it just a coincidence?

zelmo1234
02-19-2013, 08:09 AM
I notice that you anger seems to stop at Bush and Chaney? Nothing for Bill and Hilary, Kerry, Reid, Schumer, and even state Senator Obama.

All but Obama were on the Security Council and had the same information that the President had?

And you seem to be OK with the Obama administration with holding informations of Bengazie, and then Fast and Furious. Is that just by chance?

Now, knowing what we know now, it is easy to say that there was more time ans we should have played the situation differently? But in the after math of 911, we knew that Clinton made mistakes in not getting Bin Ladin when he had the chance, and the Nations and World were convinced that Sadam was lying and he was doing his best to try and convince the world of the same. Those decissions are were not htat easy in the wake of those attacks.

Cigar
02-19-2013, 08:16 AM
:smiley_ROFLMAO::smiley_ROFLMAO::smiley_ROFLMAO::s miley_ROFLMAO::smiley_ROFLMAO::smiley_ROFLMAO:

The lengths you people will go through .... :roflmao:

Chris
02-19-2013, 09:15 AM
:smiley_ROFLMAO::smiley_ROFLMAO::smiley_ROFLMAO::s miley_ROFLMAO::smiley_ROFLMAO::smiley_ROFLMAO:

The lengths you people will go through .... :roflmao:

Disappointing, was expecting you to report back something substantial from the show.

Cigar
02-19-2013, 09:19 AM
Disappointing, was expecting you to report back something substantial from the show.

Nothing to report ... just saw people who were actually involved give their account of actual events.

Who am I to call them liars ... I sure as hell wasn't there in person.

Chris
02-19-2013, 09:22 AM
Nothing to report ... just saw people who were actually involved give their account of actual events.

Who am I to call them liars ... I sure as hell wasn't there in person.

Likewise who are you to call Bush a liar?

Cigar
02-19-2013, 09:31 AM
Likewise who are you to call Bush a liar?

All the people who were actually involved and physically involved are saying it's a lie ...

NEXT!


BTW ... explain this bullshit.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8PkEezZ28Y&feature=player_embedded

nic34
02-19-2013, 10:15 AM
There was a danger. The French were providing them WMD help- at least French companies. Bush didn't make a big deal out of it because they are allies.

My unit seized tons of Yellow Cake in 2008.

Don't believe the news.

Z posted this earlier:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/


No, don't believe everything you see, just what confirms your preconceived bias.

Shachtman found that the Iraq war logs contain hundreds of references to chemical and biological weapons, but nothing that would indicate a major find of WMD material. He wrote:

"In the summer of 2008, according to one WikiLeaked report, American troops found at least 10 rounds that tested positive for chemical agents. 'These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime. Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.'"
At this point, history will still record that the Bush administration went into Iraq under an erroneous threat assessment that Saddam Hussein was manufacturing and hoarding weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20020542-503543.html


By your criteria peter, we should have invaded Iran, China and NK long ago.

Unfortunately, thousands of lives were spent needlessly... and contrary to popular neo-con beliefs here, there has been a loud and long outcry from the left for the ongoing war in Afghanistan and use of drones.

Chris
02-19-2013, 10:20 AM
All the people who were actually involved and physically involved are saying it's a lie ...

NEXT!


BTW ... explain this bullshit.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8PkEezZ28Y&feature=player_embedded

So summarize, what specific evidence is there Bush intended to lie. Give us substance, not talk about talk.

Chris
02-19-2013, 10:21 AM
No, don't believe everything you see, just what confirms your preconceived bias.

Shachtman found that the Iraq war logs contain hundreds of references to chemical and biological weapons, but nothing that would indicate a major find of WMD material. He wrote:

"In the summer of 2008, according to one WikiLeaked report, American troops found at least 10 rounds that tested positive for chemical agents. 'These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime. Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.'"
At this point, history will still record that the Bush administration went into Iraq under an erroneous threat assessment that Saddam Hussein was manufacturing and hoarding weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20020542-503543.html


By your criteria peter, we should have invaded Iran, China and NK long ago.

Unfortunately, thousands of lives were spent needlessly... and contrary to popular neo-con beliefs here, there has been a loud and long outcry from the left for the ongoing war in Afghanistan and use of drones.

The left is complaining about Obama's use of drones?

Cigar
02-19-2013, 12:44 PM
Through the months-long run-up to the invasion, Colin Powell, then the secretary of state, would become the administration's No. 1 pitchman for the war with a high-profile speech at the UN, which contained numerous false statements about Iraq and WMD. But, the documentary notes, he was hiding from the public his deep skepticism. In the film, Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff at the time, recalls the day Congress passed a resolution authorizing Bush to attack Iraq:



Powell walked into my office and without so much as a fare-thee-well, he walked over to the window and he said, "I wonder what'll happen when we put 500,000 troops into Iraq and comb the country from one end to the other and find nothing?" And he turned around and walked back in his office. And I—I wrote that down on my calendar—as close for—to verbatim as I could, because I thought that was a profound statement coming from the secretary of state, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.


Wilkerson also notes that Powell had no idea about the veracity of the intelligence he cited during that UN speech: "Though neither Powell nor anyone else from the State Department team intentionally lied, we did participate in a hoax."


A hoax. That's what it was. Yet Bush and Cheney went on to win reelection, and many of their accomplices in this swindle never were fully held accountable. In the years after the WMD scam became apparent, there certainly was a rise in public skepticism and media scrutiny of government claims. Still, could something like this happen again? Maddow remarks, "If what we went through 10 years ago did not change us as a nation—if we do not understand what happened and adapt to resist it—then history says we are doomed to repeat it."

nic34
02-19-2013, 01:04 PM
Vietnam all over again.... teach your children...

zelmo1234
02-19-2013, 01:06 PM
So Cigar how pissed are you about Lybia? As this President never even asked congress for approval to use our military against them?

How pissed are you that they will not let the investigation inot fast and furious go into effect, and that is sealed, so we are bound to repeat the selling of thoudansds of assualt weapons to those that would seek to smuggle drugs and destroy lives.

How pissed are you that they will not let the investigation into dengazi move forward, so our state department workers are in danger and might not recieve help, even when under attack.

You see I wold like to know wherew the information came from, and we do know some of it, but not all of it, and we did have a lot more time, but in 2001 their was no room for error.

Chris
02-19-2013, 01:07 PM
Through the months-long run-up to the invasion, Colin Powell, then the secretary of state, would become the administration's No. 1 pitchman for the war with a high-profile speech at the UN, which contained numerous false statements about Iraq and WMD. But, the documentary notes, he was hiding from the public his deep skepticism. In the film, Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff at the time, recalls the day Congress passed a resolution authorizing Bush to attack Iraq:



Powell walked into my office and without so much as a fare-thee-well, he walked over to the window and he said, "I wonder what'll happen when we put 500,000 troops into Iraq and comb the country from one end to the other and find nothing?" And he turned around and walked back in his office. And I—I wrote that down on my calendar—as close for—to verbatim as I could, because I thought that was a profound statement coming from the secretary of state, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.


Wilkerson also notes that Powell had no idea about the veracity of the intelligence he cited during that UN speech: "Though neither Powell nor anyone else from the State Department team intentionally lied, we did participate in a hoax."


A hoax. That's what it was. Yet Bush and Cheney went on to win reelection, and many of their accomplices in this swindle never were fully held accountable. In the years after the WMD scam became apparent, there certainly was a rise in public skepticism and media scrutiny of government claims. Still, could something like this happen again? Maddow remarks, "If what we went through 10 years ago did not change us as a nation—if we do not understand what happened and adapt to resist it—then history says we are doomed to repeat it."

And this is proof of what? That Powell had doubts. So?

Chloe
02-19-2013, 05:01 PM
At what point does the threat cross the line for you?

I don't know. I'd probably say when the threat turns into an actual attack.

Chris
02-19-2013, 05:06 PM
I don't know. I'd probably say when the threat turns into an actual attack.

Hey, where've you been all day!? You're late. So would your criteria be too late, I think.

Chloe
02-19-2013, 05:19 PM
Hey, where've you been all day!? You're late. So would your criteria be too late, I think.

I was out really late last night and slept most of the day :)

In my opinion our military should be for defense only. If we responded with force every time there is a threat to us we'd fast become the actual threat in my opinion.

Chris
02-19-2013, 05:24 PM
I was out really late last night and slept most of the day :)

In my opinion our military should be for defense only. If we responded with force every time there is a threat to us we'd fast become the actual threat in my opinion.

On that general libertarian principle I agree wholeheartedly. Our Dept of Defense should not be a Dept of Offense (stole that line from Mainecoons).

Agravan
02-19-2013, 06:09 PM
I don't know. I'd probably say when the threat turns into an actual attack.
so, only attack when Americans are laying dead on the streets? What if it was your town that was attacked, and your friends and family that were dead? Would that make you feel better about waiting even if we had ample warning that we were about to be attacked?

zelmo1234
02-19-2013, 06:19 PM
so, only attack when Americans are laying dead on the streets? What if it was your town that was attacked, and your friends and family that were dead? Would that make you feel better about waiting even if we had ample warning that we were about to be attacked?

The funny part is, liberals don't care as long as they still seem conpasionate. Look at history, they kill millions in the name of equality!

In my opnion they have little reguard for the welfare of others

Chloe
02-19-2013, 07:07 PM
so, only attack when Americans are laying dead on the streets? What if it was your town that was attacked, and your friends and family that were dead? Would that make you feel better about waiting even if we had ample warning that we were about to be attacked?


Using that mentality we may as well go to war right now with every single country that has made a threat to us in the past year up until today. Who are you wanting to attack exactly if Americans could possibly lay dead lay dead here in the streets here in Portland? Which country exactly? Which group? Iran? Iraq? Korea? A warning of attack is not the same as an attack. We threaten all of the time too, so how about every time we make a threat the country that we threatened is now justified in attacking us. That's insane. Why are you so quick to want to kill people who haven't even harmed you?

Chloe
02-19-2013, 07:08 PM
The funny part is, liberals don't care as long as they still seem conpasionate. Look at history, they kill millions in the name of equality!

In my opnion they have little reguard for the welfare of others

Finding any reason to go to war in the name of defense and fear of the unknown is far more harmful to the welfare of others

Agravan
02-19-2013, 08:19 PM
Using that mentality we may as well go to war right now with every single country that has made a threat to us in the past year up until today. Who are you wanting to attack exactly if Americans could possibly lay dead lay dead here in the streets here in Portland? Which country exactly? Which group? Iran? Iraq? Korea? A warning of attack is not the same as an attack. We threaten all of the time too, so how about every time we make a threat the country that we threatened is now justified in attacking us. That's insane. Why are you so quick to want to kill people who haven't even harmed you?
No, Chloe, again you are not understanding. We have peope out there that have made credible threats to the US. I'm saying the threat has to be credible, we have to know that they are about to launch an attack. Do do so we must have human intel, on the ground, verifiable. I'm not saying go to war at the drop of a hat. For example, when I was in Honduras, near the border of Nicaragua in the mid '80s, we were armed. Our rules of engagement said we were authorized to fire only if fired upon. Even if we saw men aiming their weapons at us we were not to fire first. Tell me chloe, if a man is aiming a weapon at you, do you really wait till he fires? What if he does not miss? Do you die a better death? you have never been in a situation like that, you think that everyone in the world is as reasonable as you are and as nice as you are. News Flash! They're not. Neither are leaders of other countries. Iran has alr4ady said they would use their nukes as soon as they have them. On Israel and us. Do you really think we should wait until mushroom clouds appear over Portland? As I said, how many Americans need to die before we attack?

zelmo1234
02-19-2013, 08:26 PM
Finding any reason to go to war in the name of defense and fear of the unknown is far more harmful to the welfare of others

Well lets hope that next time they decide to attck us, they pick on the West Coast for a while!

You are very sweet but a little clueless when it comes to the people that really want to destroy this country and everything that it stands for!

zelmo1234
02-19-2013, 08:30 PM
No, Chloe, again you are not understanding. We have peope out there that have made credible threats to the US. I'm saying the threat has to be credible, we have to know that they are about to launch an attack. Do do so we must have human intel, on the ground, verifiable. I'm not saying go to war at the drop of a hat. For example, when I was in Honduras, near the border of Nicaragua in the mid '80s, we were armed. Our rules of engagement said we were authorized to fire only if fired upon. Even if we saw men aiming their weapons at us we were not to fire first. Tell me chloe, if a man is aiming a weapon at you, do you really wait till he fires? What if he does not miss? Do you die a better death? you have never been in a situation like that, you think that everyone in the world is as reasonable as you are and as nice as you are. News Flash! They're not. Neither are leaders of other countries. Iran has alr4ady said they would use their nukes as soon as they have them. On Israel and us. Do you really think we should wait until mushroom clouds appear over Portland? As I said, how many Americans need to die before we attack?

Did you spend any time with Col Cooper? He I actually got to listen to several of his lectures.

Chloe
02-19-2013, 11:28 PM
No, Chloe, again you are not understanding. We have peope out there that have made credible threats to the US. I'm saying the threat has to be credible, we have to know that they are about to launch an attack. Do do so we must have human intel, on the ground, verifiable. I'm not saying go to war at the drop of a hat. For example, when I was in Honduras, near the border of Nicaragua in the mid '80s, we were armed. Our rules of engagement said we were authorized to fire only if fired upon. Even if we saw men aiming their weapons at us we were not to fire first. Tell me chloe, if a man is aiming a weapon at you, do you really wait till he fires? What if he does not miss? Do you die a better death? you have never been in a situation like that, you think that everyone in the world is as reasonable as you are and as nice as you are. News Flash! They're not. Neither are leaders of other countries. Iran has alr4ady said they would use their nukes as soon as they have them. On Israel and us. Do you really think we should wait until mushroom clouds appear over Portland? As I said, how many Americans need to die before we attack?

A threat whether its credible or not is still just that, a threat. You are saying we should start a fight just because someone is being mean to us and saying they want to hurt us. You are taking about putting our soldiers in harms way and possibly millions of innocent people who are in the way because our leasers as well as their leaders don't care about them. So Iran talks about destroying Israel. I read that North Korea says that they want to shoot nuclear missiles at us so why aren't we going to war with them right now because of that threat? We know they have nuclear weapons so that's more credible than Iran isn't it?

Chloe
02-19-2013, 11:36 PM
Well lets hope that next time they decide to attck us, they pick on the West Coast for a while!

You are very sweet but a little clueless when it comes to the people that really want to destroy this country and everything that it stands for!

I'm only considered clueless because I don't agree with you and I dont want to go to war because im afraid of some random possibility. I'm not afraid of the people who threaten us because at the end of the day it's just words and its not worth invading a country that hasnt actually harmed us yet. If war is truly the last resort why is it that people in this country want it so bad?

im sorry but you act like we are always just minutes away from being captured, tortured, or killed by terrorists who are waiting behind the mall for me. It's just not happening.

Private Pickle
02-19-2013, 11:44 PM
A threat whether its credible or not is still just that, a threat. You are saying we should start a fight just because someone is being mean to us and saying they want to hurt us. You are taking about people our soldiers in harms way and possibly millions of innocent people who are in the way because our leasers as well as their leaders don't care about them. So Iran talks about destroying Israel. I read that North Korea says that they want to shoot nuclear missiles at us so why aren't we going to war with them right now because of that threat? We know they have nuclear weapons so that's more credible than Iran isn't it?

Iran is the #1 State Sponsor of terrorism. They fight and kill Americans by engaging in proxy wars all the time. That in and it itself is cause for war and beyond a threat.

Chloe
02-19-2013, 11:45 PM
Iran is the #1 State Sponsor of terrorism. They fight and kill Americans by engaging in proxy wars all the time. That in and it itself is cause for war and beyond a threat.

So why aren't we invading them?

Peter1469
02-19-2013, 11:45 PM
Iran is the #1 State Sponsor of terrorism. They fight and kill Americans by engaging in proxy wars all the time. That in and it itself is cause for war and beyond a threat.

What better way to fight Iran than through proxy wars. We certainly couldn't invade them. They are surrounded by mountains that would neutralize our technological advantages for the most part.

Dr. Who
02-19-2013, 11:55 PM
There was a danger. The French were providing them WMD help- at least French companies. Bush didn't make a big deal out of it because they are allies.

My unit seized tons of Yellow Cake in 2008.

Don't believe the news.

Z posted this earlier:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/
Yes but yellowcake is also used in the preparation of uranium fuel for nuclear reactors. There is also information that the yellow cake seized by American troops was left over from decades old bombed out and decommissioned nuclear reactor projects.

Dr. Who
02-20-2013, 12:04 AM
No, Chloe, again you are not understanding. We have peope out there that have made credible threats to the US. I'm saying the threat has to be credible, we have to know that they are about to launch an attack. Do do so we must have human intel, on the ground, verifiable. I'm not saying go to war at the drop of a hat. For example, when I was in Honduras, near the border of Nicaragua in the mid '80s, we were armed. Our rules of engagement said we were authorized to fire only if fired upon. Even if we saw men aiming their weapons at us we were not to fire first. Tell me chloe, if a man is aiming a weapon at you, do you really wait till he fires? What if he does not miss? Do you die a better death? you have never been in a situation like that, you think that everyone in the world is as reasonable as you are and as nice as you are. News Flash! They're not. Neither are leaders of other countries. Iran has alr4ady said they would use their nukes as soon as they have them. On Israel and us. Do you really think we should wait until mushroom clouds appear over Portland? As I said, how many Americans need to die before we attack?
I have serious doubts. The US can with nuclear weapons lay waste to every country on the planet several times over. I don't think that the concept of pyrrhic victory is lost on everyone. It is one thing to threaten an ally of the US and quite another to threaten the US. Threats are one thing, doing is quite another. One nuclear bomb deployed in the middle east does not just kill the target country, it also kills all of its neighbors, albeit more slowly.

Private Pickle
02-20-2013, 12:06 AM
What better way to fight Iran than through proxy wars. We certainly couldn't invade them. They are surrounded by mountains that would neutralize our technological advantages for the most part.

We could invade them. Our technological superiority combined with the fact that more than half of the Iranian people could be persuaded to fight for us makes Iran a softer target than they were 10-20 years ago. We wouldn't be able to occupy Iran without a severe employment of Marshall law but we certainly could dispose the religious order that controls that country.

Agravan
02-20-2013, 12:17 AM
A threat whether its credible or not is still just that, a threat. You are saying we should start a fight just because someone is being mean to us and saying they want to hurt us. You are taking about putting our soldiers in harms way and possibly millions of innocent people who are in the way because our leasers as well as their leaders don't care about them. So Iran talks about destroying Israel. I read that North Korea says that they want to shoot nuclear missiles at us so why aren't we going to war with them right now because of that threat? We know they have nuclear weapons so that's more credible than Iran isn't it?
Ok, Chloe, You will not be satisfied until there are dead Americans laying in the street. That is crystal clear now. You are the type of pacifist that ends up getting people killed. If that is your concept of compassion, then I feel for you. That you think everyone in the world is as reasonable as you think your are is another sure sign of liberal feel-good, blame America first indoctrination that you deny you have. No one should ever hurt each other. Let them hit us first. Even if they hit us first we should try to talk to them before we shoot them or defend ourselves. In other words, your world view is an extension of the "victim" mentality that the left fosters in their mind-numbed youth these days. Don't worry Chloe, while you live in your little fantasy world where everybody holds hands and sings Kumbaya while watching their pet Unicorns frolic in the fields, there are rough men standing guard and ready to kill and die for you so that you can keep your liliy white hands clean and scold us from that Ivory Tower of yours. Without hundreds of Americans dying first so that you can feel sanctimonious.

Private Pickle
02-20-2013, 12:20 AM
So why aren't we invading them?

The current President is sympathetic to their cause.

zelmo1234
02-20-2013, 12:42 AM
I'm only considered clueless because I don't agree with you and I dont want to go to war because im afraid of some random possibility. I'm not afraid of the people who threaten us because at the end of the day it's just words and its not worth invading a country that hasnt actually harmed us yet. If war is truly the last resort why is it that people in this country want it so bad?

im sorry but you act like we are always just minutes away from being captured, tortured, or killed by terrorists who are waiting behind the mall for me. It's just not happening.

You will have to forgive me! Remember that my job for several years was to look for the bad guy and stop him before he could hurt anyone. It leaves me a little jaded.

I hope that you are right and I am wrong. But then again? It is my job to notice things, and I have been there! I lost people that I cared very much for in 911. So the sting is a little deep!

Chloe
02-20-2013, 11:10 AM
Ok, Chloe, You will not be satisfied until there are dead Americans laying in the street. That is crystal clear now. You are the type of pacifist that ends up getting people killed. If that is your concept of compassion, then I feel for you. That you think everyone in the world is as reasonable as you think your are is another sure sign of liberal feel-good, blame America first indoctrination that you deny you have. No one should ever hurt each other. Let them hit us first. Even if they hit us first we should try to talk to them before we shoot them or defend ourselves. In other words, your world view is an extension of the "victim" mentality that the left fosters in their mind-numbed youth these days. Don't worry Chloe, while you live in your little fantasy world where everybody holds hands and sings Kumbaya while watching their pet Unicorns frolic in the fields, there are rough men standing guard and ready to kill and die for you so that you can keep your liliy white hands clean and scold us from that Ivory Tower of yours. Without hundreds of Americans dying first so that you can feel sanctimonious.

I'm sorry but this is getting a little ridiculous. I may try to respond later to this if im not as mad but all I'm trying to do is give my point of view and answer questions honestly when you guys ask me things. If I knew before hand that the only real response to my points of view would be me getting belittled and stuff then I'd probably be a little more careful.

Chloe
02-20-2013, 12:07 PM
The current President is sympathetic to their cause.

Or the more realistic reason is because invading a country that hasn't attacked you is bad idea

Cigar
02-20-2013, 12:08 PM
Or the more realistic reason is because invading a country that hasn't attacked you is bad idea

Stop it .. you're making sense ... that's not allowed

Chris
02-20-2013, 12:14 PM
Stop it .. you're making sense ... that's not allowed

Yea, you're confusing cigar.

Agravan
02-20-2013, 12:55 PM
I'm sorry but this is getting a little ridiculous. I may try to respond later to this if im not as mad but all I'm trying to do is give my point of view and answer questions honestly when you guys ask me things. If I knew before hand that the only real response to my points of view would be me getting belittled and stuff then I'd probably be a little more careful.
What is more ridiculous? Trying to prevent an attack before it happens, or waiting until Americans are dead before reacting? You talk about threats being just words. Well, yes they are just words. Butif you fail to heed the threats of rogue regimes that have proven capable of attacking, who is the bigger fool? The one that waits, or the one that is proactive?
I know what your answer is. Always the victim, you choose to act after the fact, if you are still able to. As a single, childless, sheltered liberal, you have no one to worry about but yourself. If you die, so be it. But others have families, children, and I would rather not see them dead before reacting to a threat. I will kill ANYONE that so much as makes a credible threat to my family, and y extension, my country.
That is the distinction between a wishy-washy liberal and a conservative. You say we act out of fear of threats... No, we act out of experience, of which you have none, of reality. We live in the real world, where there are psychopaths who will kill you at the drop of a hat or just for thrills. You don't think people are waiting to jump out and attack you... fine, I hope you're right, I truly do. But you can live in your dream world with your head in the sand. Others choose to live in the real world and remain vigilant. I'm not belittleing your ideas, Chloe. I just honestly have a tough time understanding how someone can be so mind numbingly naive as to think there is no danger if we're just nice to each other. And, as I said, if your idea of compassion is to not defend yourself until after you see people laying dead around you, then I feel for this world if that is the vision of compassion you kids are bringing to the table.

Cigar
02-20-2013, 12:59 PM
So now you like preventative measures ... :grin:

Don't get me started on the hypocrisy of that comment ...

Chloe
02-20-2013, 01:18 PM
What is more ridiculous? Trying to prevent an attack before it happens, or waiting until Americans are dead before reacting? You talk about threats being just words. Well, yes they are just words. Butif you fail to heed the threats of rogue regimes that have proven capable of attacking, who is the bigger fool? The one that waits, or the one that is proactive?
I know what your answer is. Always the victim, you choose to act after the fact, if you are still able to. As a single, childless, sheltered liberal, you have no one to worry about but yourself. If you die, so be it. But others have families, children, and I would rather not see them dead before reacting to a threat. I will kill ANYONE that so much as makes a credible threat to my family, and y extension, my country.
That is the distinction between a wishy-washy liberal and a conservative. You say we act out of fear of threats... No, we act out of experience, of which you have none, of reality. We live in the real world, where there are psychopaths who will kill you at the drop of a hat or just for thrills. You don't think people are waiting to jump out and attack you... fine, I hope you're right, I truly do. But you can live in your dream world with your head in the sand. Others choose to live in the real world and remain vigilant. I'm not belittleing your ideas, Chloe. I just honestly have a tough time understanding how someone can be so mind numbingly naive as to think there is no danger if we're just nice to each other. And, as I said, if your idea of compassion is to not defend yourself until after you see people laying dead around you, then I feel for this world if that is the vision of compassion you kids are bringing to the table.

Please tell me how you plan on preventing an attack from a rogue regime though without actually attacking them or invading them and starting a war, which would be completely based on threats and not actual acts from the country you targeted. What you are saying basically is that if you knew of someone who hated you and threatened to hurt you that you should drive to their house and kill them first before they try to kill you. That would never happen unless you also plan on being charged with murder and accepting that prison sentence, but it's ok though if the government does that and kill thousands of people in addition by accident and probably not actually hurting the person who made the threat because its not you having to do the killing.

im not being naive, I'm being realistic and responsible. You say to remain vigilant. You can do that without starting wars and attacking people who haven't done anything to you other than insult your pride or stepping on a flag. Also I don't think that everybody is nice and doesn't want to hurt me, but that doesnt mean we go around killing people because we think they might try and hurt us one day in the future or because they threaten us.

roadmaster
02-20-2013, 01:19 PM
We live in the real world, where there are psychopaths who will kill you at the drop of a hat or just for thrills LOL I have met many, no kidding. They don't think the way we do and I learned that earlier in life. Just talking to them and in a way I have the same trait (not showing emotion) they are in their own worlds, you can't reason with them and if you think or turn your back they will try to kill you. With that said I hope not to be in another war and most certainly no civil wars but if it comes to American citizens in harms way then we will have to react.

Chloe
02-20-2013, 01:28 PM
You will have to forgive me! Remember that my job for several years was to look for the bad guy and stop him before he could hurt anyone. It leaves me a little jaded.

I hope that you are right and I am wrong. But then again? It is my job to notice things, and I have been there! I lost people that I cared very much for in 911. So the sting is a little deep!

I understand that but all I am saying is that just because there are threats it doesn't mean we go around starting wars and killing thousands

nic34
02-20-2013, 01:32 PM
I just honestly have a tough time understanding how someone can be so mind numbingly naive as to think there is no danger if we're just nice to each other.

It's not naive to build bridges first. IT IS naive to keep bombing folks (Yes, drones Mr Obama) in order to GET them to play nice, when in fact you are just creating MORE enemies.


And, as I said, if your idea of compassion is to not defend yourself until after you see people laying dead around you,

The only case that I can think of where that happened recently is 9/11, when the administration ignored numerous warnings.

Agravan
02-20-2013, 01:47 PM
So now you like preventative measures ... :grin:

Don't get me started on the hypocrisy of that comment ...
Please, Cigar. Go right ahead and explain the hypocrisy of my statement. I think I know where you're going, but please... by all means, go there.

Agravan
02-20-2013, 01:50 PM
Please identify the administration that ignored the threat.

nic34
02-20-2013, 01:53 PM
The Bush, Cheney admin... but you knew that.

Agravan
02-20-2013, 01:56 PM
I understand that but all I am saying is that just because there are threats it doesn't mean we go around starting wars and killing thousands

That's it. The victim mentality is so ingrained in youthat there can be no reasonable discussion on this subject.
You think my idea is to kill everyone that looks at me sideways, you are either being purposely obtuse on this subject or you really do not understand the nature of a threat. I'm not going to just go around killing people, but if there is a CREDIBLE threat, in that I know he has the means, intent and will to do this, and I see him preparing and actually comeing towrds my family, then I would be proactive.. That your liberal indoctrination makes a scenario such as this unlikely, in your view, is not surprising. Let's talk about this after you are older and have a couple of kids...

Agravan
02-20-2013, 01:58 PM
The Bush, Cheney admin... but you knew that.

No, I knew that was where you were headed. What about the Clinton administration who refused Bin lade? What about the Clinton administrations building of the wall between the FBI and CIA? there are more than just one administration at fault, yet you choose to focus on the one that was in charge at the time.

Chloe
02-20-2013, 02:04 PM
That's it. The victim mentality is so ingrained in youthat there can be no reasonable discussion on this subject.
You think my idea is to kill everyone that looks at me sideways, you are either being purposely obtuse on this subject or you really do not understand the nature of a threat. I'm not going to just go around killing people, but if there is a CREDIBLE threat, in that I know he has the means, intent and will to do this, and I see him preparing and actually comeing towrds my family, then I would be proactive.. That your liberal indoctrination makes a scenario such as this unlikely, in your view, is not surprising. Let's talk about this after you are older and have a couple of kids...

Can I ask you, what do you think creates terrorism?

Mister D
02-20-2013, 02:09 PM
Can I ask you, what do you think creates terrorism?

Depends on who we're talking about. Frankly, I think there is a vein of humiliation and shame that runs through the Arab consciousness. I think radical Arab movements (be they nationalist, ethnic or religious) are partly motivated by that. It also helps explain their hatred of Israel which would be much more understandable if Israel occupied more than a tiny slice of land.

Agravan
02-20-2013, 02:09 PM
Can I ask you, what do you think creates terrorism?

Of course the answer to that is the United States of America.
Fell better?

Chloe
02-20-2013, 02:16 PM
Of course the answer to that is the United States of America.
Fell better?

You're obviously not very thrilled with me right now so maybe it would be better to just forget about it for a little while.

nic34
02-20-2013, 03:11 PM
No, I knew that was where you were headed. What about the Clinton administration who refused Bin lade? What about the Clinton administrations building of the wall between the FBI and CIA? there are more than just one administration at fault, yet you choose to focus on the one that was in charge at the time.

Yes, there is even blame that goes back to Bush I and Reagan... kinda highlights what I said about making enemies instead of building bridges...

And what was that about Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand during the 80's?

Agravan
02-20-2013, 04:29 PM
Yes, there is even blame that goes back to Bush I and Reagan... kinda highlights what I said about making enemies instead of building bridges...

And what was that about Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand during the 80's?
It's called Realpolitik. Sometimes you have to cozy up to scumbags in order to protect your interests.

Cigar
02-20-2013, 04:31 PM
It's called Realpolitik. Sometimes you have to cozy up to scumbags in order to protect your interests.

We know ...

http://stuffthatmattersblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/wayne-lapierre-nra.jpg

Chloe
02-20-2013, 06:24 PM
Of course the answer to that is the United States of America.
Fell better?

The United States does help create terrorism by the way we act around the world, there's no real denying that in my opinion, but that's not to say that it's all our fault of course since it's not. My thing is that every time we start a war, attack a town, blow up a building, kill 20 people with a drone, threaten countries, arm their enemies and countries around the world, eventually it will and does piss off a lot of people.

zelmo1234
02-20-2013, 06:31 PM
I understand that but all I am saying is that just because there are threats it doesn't mean we go around starting wars and killing thousands

There is always reacting with onbelieveable force making those that would do harm a little more thoughtful of their actions. But we are way to politically correct for that.

Chloe
02-20-2013, 06:34 PM
There is always reacting with onbelieveable force making those that would do harm a little more thoughtful of their actions. But we are way to politically correct for that.

You don't think that every time we react and kill some of their people they don't want to react even harder to kill some of ours? Just because someone is killed does not mean that a whole movement and mindset is going to suddenly just give up. Would the US just give up if people got killed? Of course not, so why would we be so naive to think that the "terrorists" will give up just because we show force? Obviously this hatred between us and them didn't start overnight so it won't be fixed over night, but it certainly can't be fixed if we go back and forth back and forth killing each other.

zelmo1234
02-20-2013, 06:38 PM
The Bush, Cheney admin... but you knew that.

Now you might be to young to remember this, I am not sure, but here is some fon and fact filled reading for you!

Remember that Bush and Cheaney were only in office for 8 months? And everything even after 4 years of Obama is still GWB's fault.

http://cristyli.blogspot.com/2007/07/clinton-administration-ignored-islamic.html

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=182

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

Now this was the apeasment that the Bush administartion inherited?

So would you like to revise your comments?

zelmo1234
02-20-2013, 06:40 PM
Can I ask you, what do you think creates terrorism?

Do you mind if I ask you what you think caused terroism?

zelmo1234
02-20-2013, 06:42 PM
We know ...

http://stuffthatmattersblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/wayne-lapierre-nra.jpg

Diverting to an un related topic. 5 liberal brownie points!

Chloe
02-20-2013, 06:44 PM
Do you mind if I ask you what you think caused terroism?

I don't know what originally caused it since it's probably been around for a thousand years in some way or another, but I'd say though like today's terrorism or like what we all would call terrorism and stuff now is probably the result of countries and people who desire world domination and greed through either money, military, land, or what ever. And from that greed and want for domination it created groups of people who were sick of the oppression or forced ideas and culture and decided to group together and fight back. I've heard the saying before that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, well honestly there is a lot of truth in that I think. What we call a terrorist to their culture, friends, mindsets, and whatever they are freedom fighters. We were probably considered terrorists when we rebelled against england even though we probably considered ourselves nothing like that i'm sure at the time.

Agravan
02-20-2013, 06:44 PM
The United States does help create terrorism by the way we act around the world, there's no real denying that in my opinion, but that's not to say that it's all our fault of course since it's not. My thing is that every time we start a war, attack a town, blow up a building, kill 20 people with a drone, threaten countries, arm their enemies and countries around the world, eventually it will and does piss off a lot of people.
of course we do. that's the mainstay of liberal indoctrination. So let's do this. let's pull all of our forces out of every conutry in the world where they're stationed. Let's buy back all the weapons we have out there. Let's renege on our defense treaties with NATO, the UN and other nations. We no longer kill anyone, even if they slaughter Americans. We'll just kneel at their feet and beg forgiveness for being the awful nation that we have been. That will solve all the world's problems, at least where they concern us. We should never interfere in any other country's internal politics ever again.
This, and only this, will make the world love us once more. Oh, I forgot, let us open or abolish our borders forevermore because no human is illegal. Then we can begin to live in the Utopia that liberals believe in.
And when people start pouring in, killing Americans destroying what's left of our once great cities, those of us who tried to warn you can let you guys live in theworld of your own making.

Agravan
02-20-2013, 06:45 PM
You don't think that every time we react and kill some of their people they don't want to react even harder to kill some of ours? Just because someone is killed does not mean that a whole movement and mindset is going to suddenly just give up. Would the US just give up if people got killed? Of course not, so why would we be so naive to think that the "terrorists" will give up just because we show force? Obviously this hatred between us and them didn't start overnight so it won't be fixed over night, but it certainly can't be fixed if we go back and forth back and forth killing each other.
kill enough of their people and you don't need to worry about them ever again.

zelmo1234
02-20-2013, 06:45 PM
You don't think that every time we react and kill some of their people they don't want to react even harder to kill some of ours? Just because someone is killed does not mean that a whole movement and mindset is going to suddenly just give up. Would the US just give up if people got killed? Of course not, so why would we be so naive to think that the "terrorists" will give up just because we show force? Obviously this hatred between us and them didn't start overnight so it won't be fixed over night, but it certainly can't be fixed if we go back and forth back and forth killing each other.

It won't get fixed unless you are willing to give up the way we live in this country, specificaly the rights of women.

The way that we live, represents the end of everything that they hold dear. It is that simple!

And you will not like what I mean by force.

zelmo1234
02-20-2013, 06:48 PM
kill enough of their people and you don't need to worry about them ever again.

That is what they did during the crusaides, it took hundreds of years for them to repopulate and become a threat again!

Agravan
02-20-2013, 06:51 PM
I don't know what originally caused it since it's probably been around for a thousand years in some way or another, but I'd say though like today's terrorism or like what we all would call terrorism and stuff now is probably the result of countries and people who desire world domination and greed through either money, military, land, or what ever. And from that greed and want for domination it created groups of people who were sick of the oppression or forced ideas and culture and decided to group together and fight back. I've heard the saying before that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, well honestly there is a lot of truth in that I think. What we call a terrorist to their culture, friends, mindsets, and whatever they are freedom fighters. We were probably considered terrorists when we rebelled against england even though we probably considered ourselves nothing like that i'm sure at the time.

ter·ror·ist

/ˈtɛrhttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngərhttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngɪst/ Show Spelled [ter-er-ist] noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism (http://thepoliticalforums.com/browse/terrorism).
2. a person who terrorizes (http://thepoliticalforums.com/browse/terrorize) or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror (http://thepoliticalforums.com/browse/terror).
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.

adjective
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism (http://thepoliticalforums.com/browse/terrorism) or terrorists: terrorist tactics.

American Left definition :
1. American military forces
2. Any American who isn't a leftist

Agravan
02-20-2013, 06:57 PM
That is what they did during the crusaides, it took hundreds of years for them to repopulate and become a threat again!Time to do it again.

zelmo1234
02-20-2013, 06:58 PM
I don't know what originally caused it since it's probably been around for a thousand years in some way or another, but I'd say though like today's terrorism or like what we all would call terrorism and stuff now is probably the result of countries and people who desire world domination and greed through either money, military, land, or what ever. And from that greed and want for domination it created groups of people who were sick of the oppression or forced ideas and culture and decided to group together and fight back. I've heard the saying before that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, well honestly there is a lot of truth in that I think. What we call a terrorist to their culture, friends, mindsets, and whatever they are freedom fighters. We were probably considered terrorists when we rebelled against england even though we probably considered ourselves nothing like that i'm sure at the time.

Very insiteful I am proud of you! :icon_salut:

Here are some things to consider.

The culture that they are trying to preserve gives no rights to many parts of their populations and does not allow for any straying from the path. For example those that do not beleive in the religions of Islam are at best allowed to be slaves

Women are nothing more that property, they have no right to vote, be educated, show their skin in public, as a matter of fact they do not even have the right to their own life!

The freedoms that are enjoyed in the west are seeping into their culture and they represent an end to this way of life. This they can not tolerate, and this is why they will do anything they possibly can to destroy the west.

here is an article that might help you to understand.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2004/2004112819.asp

Now in the face of this, what can we do so that they will not hate us so much?

Chloe
02-20-2013, 07:12 PM
kill enough of their people and you don't need to worry about them ever again.

Thats more of an emotional hope than it is a realistic outcome in my opinion. It's also arguably genocide and/or mass world wide killing. That can't truly be what you want in your heart in my opinion.

Agravan
02-20-2013, 07:15 PM
Thats more of an emotional hope than it is a realistic outcome in my opinion. It's also arguably genocide and/or mass world wide killing. That can't truly be what you want in your heart in my opinion.
OK, I bow to your vast experience....

Chloe
02-20-2013, 07:15 PM
That is what they did during the crusaides, it took hundreds of years for them to repopulate and become a threat again!

Yet they came back in spite of it. Obviously history repeats itself.

Chloe
02-20-2013, 07:17 PM
OK, I bow to your vast experience....

Are you like trying to get under my skin on purpose or something? I'm just giving my opinion. I'm not insulting you or making any of this personal.

zelmo1234
02-20-2013, 07:19 PM
Yet they came back in spite of it. Obviously history repeats itself.

You are correct and they still have the same goal in mind and it might just take the same actions to prevent that outcome!

Chloe
02-20-2013, 07:20 PM
You are correct and they still have the same goal in mind and it might just take the same actions to prevent that outcome!

But have you ever stopped to think that perhaps it's not ALL them that causes it to repeat? Usually blame is shared in some way.

zelmo1234
02-20-2013, 07:28 PM
But have you ever stopped to think that perhaps it's not ALL them that causes it to repeat? Usually blame is shared in some way.

To be true to there religion they must destroy all other religions, especially yours. Remember that that the founder of these two religions were step brothers, and one was banished to the desert!

So other than the fact you are jewish and it wouldn't matter, would you be willing to give up your lifestyle and follw their religin in the name of peace. And remember that means that you would no longer be allowed to continue your educations, and would stop being a person and become some mans property? Sound like a good trade to you?

Agravan
02-20-2013, 07:30 PM
Are you like trying to get under my skin on purpose or something? I'm just giving my opinion. I'm not insulting you or making any of this personal.

It's not personal. I just know when to stop arguing. In the interest of diplomacy, i will concede the argument/debate to you.

Chloe
02-20-2013, 11:11 PM
To be true to there religion they must destroy all other religions, especially yours. Remember that that the founder of these two religions were step brothers, and one was banished to the desert!

So other than the fact you are jewish and it wouldn't matter, would you be willing to give up your lifestyle and follw their religin in the name of peace. And remember that means that you would no longer be allowed to continue your educations, and would stop being a person and become some mans property? Sound like a good trade to you?

No but that's not going to happen. I'd have a better chance of having some Ultra Orthodox Jew try and limit my freedoms as a jewish female before some random Muslim radical would.

Adelaide
02-20-2013, 11:14 PM
No but that's not going to happen. I'd have a better chance of having some Ultra Orthodox Jew try and limit my freedoms as a jewish female before some random Muslim radical would.

So true. Some of the stories I've read about the ultra Orthodox in Israel and how they treat women or even girls walking to school... so horrible.

Chloe
02-20-2013, 11:18 PM
So true. Some of the stories I've read about the ultra Orthodox in Israel and how they treat women or even girls walking to school... so horrible.

Yeah people are sooo afraid of radical Muslims but the likelihood of being oppressed by your own group, family, community and so on is much much greater than some scary islamic shadow figure.

Private Pickle
02-20-2013, 11:19 PM
Yeah people are sooo afraid of radical Muslims but the likelihood of being oppressed by your own group, family, community and so on is much much greater than some scary islamic shadow figure.

Here in the States that may be true...

Agravan
02-21-2013, 01:03 AM
Chloe. I didn't say you were right, just that this argument is pointless.:dang:

zelmo1234
02-21-2013, 02:41 AM
No but that's not going to happen. I'd have a better chance of having some Ultra Orthodox Jew try and limit my freedoms as a jewish female before some random Muslim radical would.

Ok so you are not willing to change, and you are more scared of the Jewish religion? I do not remember the Jewish people flying planes into buildings, or trying to blow up time square, shooting people in a military base, or trying to blow up an airliner on Christmas day? But maybe I am nissing something?

But here is the Truth. You are not willing to change the way you live, so you can leave the middle east, abandon Israel and allow then to kill all of the jews that live there. You can even pay them reparations. And you still represent an end to the very religion that drives them. So you must be killed!

Now if this sounds sick and twisted to you, and something that you can't understand, You are correct. And this is what the west can;t seem to wrap it;s hands around. You see as the children of the region are exposed to the western culture and freedoms, it makes them question the opression that is demanded by Islam. And that is why they hate us, that is why we are the Great Satan!

And that unfortunatly is why they will never give up. So you have a choice, you can engage in the region, as we are doing now, or you can make the response so horrific that they consintrat on other cultures and leave the USA until the last.

Now what do I mean by horrific response. Well you may not remember but after 911, hundreds of thousands of muslims took to the streests after Friday Prayers, is celibrations of the lost of life in America. We 3 or 4 cruise missiles into each oneo f these crowdes and the total distruction of Neca should do the trick.

Now you can as you pull away from the regions warn the people that the selibrations of attacks on our country will be considered an act of war, and you cantell them that any attack on the USA will be dealt with in the most extreme way. but this will in fact anger the region and the religion, but they will after loosing a very large percentage of their people especially their young and radical males. decide that they need to ride their religion of the small satan's before taking on the USA

Also this will require adopting the drill baby drill policies here in the USA! And unfortunatly this is the sick and twisted choices that you have, and is exactly why Priesident Obama has not fullfiled his promist to end the wars.

zelmo1234
02-21-2013, 02:58 AM
So true. Some of the stories I've read about the ultra Orthodox in Israel and how they treat women or even girls walking to school... so horrible.

Girls going to school???? I sure hope that they did not give them medical treatment too? You do not educate property or waste a doctors time with them?

http://frontpagemag.com/upload/pamphlets/ViolentOpp.pdf

This is what the women of Islam face! Under the religion of peace!

And as for education?

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/11/09/child-rapes-killings-terrify-parents-iraq.html

As for medical treatement of Women, One of my friends that I actually met in Iraq. sponsered a family, that came here to the USA. The young women spent several the few years here educating herself to become a nurse, so she could give medical treatment to the women in Iraq in here vilage.

They returned to there country, and she started her practice, she wa gang raped and had her head chopped off for this terrible crime against radical Islam!

This is what you are trying to justify. this is what by the policy of apeasment you are saying to the women of the middle east. This is what womens right equal! And this is how you should live. And this is why I can not return to the region, as this was a beautiful, kind and loving family and she had 2 beautiful children. And these sick (nasty word) decided to end that life, becasue a women that was smart enough to give women medical attention was a threat to there sick and twisted religion!

hanger4
02-21-2013, 07:48 AM
To be true to there religion they must destroy all other religions, especially yours. Remember that that the founder of these two religions were step brothers, and one was banished to the desert!

Actually they, Isaac and Ishmael, were half brothers.

Just sayin'. :icon_thumleft:

Private Pickle
02-21-2013, 08:03 AM
Actually they, Isaac and Ishmael, were half brothers.

Just sayin'. :icon_thumleft:

Their mom was a slut?

zelmo1234
02-21-2013, 08:09 AM
Actually they, Isaac and Ishmael, were half brothers.

Just sayin'. :icon_thumleft:

I stand corrected Thanks

zelmo1234
02-21-2013, 08:09 AM
Their mom was a slut?

No I think it was the DAD!

hanger4
02-21-2013, 08:12 AM
Their mom was a slut?

Same Pop.

Isaac's mom was Sarah, Abraham's wife and

Ishmael's mom was Hagar, Sarah's handmaiden.

Chloe
02-21-2013, 09:56 AM
@Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565). I didn't say you were right, just that this argument is pointless.:dang:

Most arguments are pointless but it doesn't mean you can't have a nice conversation about it.

Chloe
02-21-2013, 10:01 AM
Ok so you are not willing to change, and you are more scared of the Jewish religion? I do not remember the Jewish people flying planes into buildings, or trying to blow up time square, shooting people in a military base, or trying to blow up an airliner on Christmas day? But maybe I am nissing something?

But here is the Truth. You are not willing to change the way you live, so you can leave the middle east, abandon Israel and allow then to kill all of the jews that live there. You can even pay them reparations. And you still represent an end to the very religion that drives them. So you must be killed!

Now if this sounds sick and twisted to you, and something that you can't understand, You are correct. And this is what the west can;t seem to wrap it;s hands around. You see as the children of the region are exposed to the western culture and freedoms, it makes them question the opression that is demanded by Islam. And that is why they hate us, that is why we are the Great Satan!

And that unfortunatly is why they will never give up. So you have a choice, you can engage in the region, as we are doing now, or you can make the response so horrific that they consintrat on other cultures and leave the USA until the last.

Now what do I mean by horrific response. Well you may not remember but after 911, hundreds of thousands of muslims took to the streests after Friday Prayers, is celibrations of the lost of life in America. We 3 or 4 cruise missiles into each oneo f these crowdes and the total distruction of Neca should do the trick.

Now you can as you pull away from the regions warn the people that the selibrations of attacks on our country will be considered an act of war, and you cantell them that any attack on the USA will be dealt with in the most extreme way. but this will in fact anger the region and the religion, but they will after loosing a very large percentage of their people especially their young and radical males. decide that they need to ride their religion of the small satan's before taking on the USA

Also this will require adopting the drill baby drill policies here in the USA! And unfortunatly this is the sick and twisted choices that you have, and is exactly why Priesident Obama has not fullfiled his promist to end the wars.

You kind of go to the extreme conclusions really quickly in my opinion. I didn't say I was more scared of the Jewish religion. There's nothing to be afraid of within the Jewish religion, the Christian religion, Islam, Buddism, and so on. It's just certain radical people. My point was that there are ultra orthodox jews that would treat me just as poorly as an ultra radical muslim would, or just as bad as an ultra religious christian would. Islam isn't the problem, it's extremists, just like in any religion, political party, community, and whatever. When you attack a country and/or religion because of the actions of the radical fringe you aren't doing yourself any favors and you aren't doing the right thing in my opinion. America hasn't been around all that long in comparison to other countries and religion. They consider us the great satan because of our actions towards them. Prior to the United States being formed we weren't the great satan because the country did not exist. What we do as a country can and will affect us around the world and how we are looked at and treated. People aren't born to hate someone they are taught those things, and if you are wanting to teach me and others that Islam is going to come and enslave me then it's no better of a teaching than the islamic radical teaching their kids that americans are evil.

zelmo1234
02-21-2013, 01:49 PM
So you are perfectly Ok with the way that they treat Women and Christian and Jews in there country!

I notice that you are unwilling to address that it is our culture that is a threat to their religion and way of life? And not the military intervention in their country!

Yo did not address the sufferage that their citizens go through! YOu have an opnion and that opnion is yours to keep but the facts are that they have no intention of letting life as we know it continue in the USA. because to do that will bring an end to what they hold dear.

Like I said you are free to believe what you will. But your beleif is not founded in facts. You have to ignore them to make your beleif work.

And I am OK with that but you had better be on here praiseing there actions the next time they have a succesful attack, because your beleif is actuaally making them stronger. and is exactly what they are counting on!

Chloe
02-21-2013, 03:02 PM
So you are perfectly Ok with the way that they treat Women and Christian and Jews in there country!

I notice that you are unwilling to address that it is our culture that is a threat to their religion and way of life? And not the military intervention in their country!

Yo did not address the sufferage that their citizens go through! YOu have an opnion and that opnion is yours to keep but the facts are that they have no intention of letting life as we know it continue in the USA. because to do that will bring an end to what they hold dear.

Like I said you are free to believe what you will. But your beleif is not founded in facts. You have to ignore them to make your beleif work.

And I am OK with that but you had better be on here praiseing there actions the next time they have a succesful attack, because your beleif is actuaally making them stronger. and is exactly what they are counting on!

Of course i'm not ok with how they (radicals) treat women, christian and jews, why do you keep implying that? I never once said I was ok with that. All I am saying is that those are the extremes of that religion, just like christians and jews have their extremes. It doesn't mean we should go and invade countries though. There is a lot of suffering in the world and i'd love to help as many of them as possible but going in with bombs and bases won't help them either.

Of course it's our culture that is a threat to their way of life. It's our culture that feels we have the obligation and world right to impose our culture through our military and money. Why wouldn't they hate us for that? By me saying these things it doesn't make sympathize with their cause and their reasons for wanting to hurt us. All I am doing is acknowledging that we are not pure and innocent bystanders in the world. WE create just as much hardship for other parts of the world as we do when it comes to creating good things. If you can't accept the fact that we have a lot of responsibility with regards to how current way the world works then you are being willfully ignorant and nationalistic in my opinion.

zelmo1234
02-21-2013, 04:12 PM
Your above post was very good. Great arguments. and not playing on the sympathies, but facts.

That is the tight rope! How do you destroy evil, and not inflict unwanted change on a population.

But remember that evil will not quietly go away, and this is one of the qoutes that we teach the agents that we train!

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/17142.Edmund_Burke

Sometimes is our desire to do good we go to far!

PS I am very, very proud of your last post. way to put me in my place!!!