|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Terrorism in London | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
Phatboy writes: We nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima in order to spare lives. We may soon have to do something similar. The debate has sunk pretty low when this kind of point is made. Hiroshima vapourised tens of thousands of civilians including 91% of the city's doctors and 92% of the city's nurses, and destroyed all of the city's 42 hospitals. By the end of 1945 the death toll was 145,000. Next suggestion, please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Kant op cit (in this thread) said,
quote:p157-9 This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 07-08-2005 04:41 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meeb Inactive Member |
HAHAHAHAHAHAA!! Please, you're choking me. BRR..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CanadianSteve Member (Idle past 6473 days) Posts: 756 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Joined: |
Polls show the majority of iraqis want democracy, and want the US to stick around until the saddamite and islamist (mainly foreigners) are defeated. the most influential man in the country, Ayatollah al sistani, also takes this stand. It is not a war on iraqis; it is a war for Iraqis, and they appreciate that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
You can’t be this dumb Holmes, to think that poor little Iraq was just an ordinary dictatorship. I was stating that out of the criteria he provided for who we should be going after that was the only criteria Iraq met. Next time read my post more carefully before replying to it.
Blair didn’t screw up, shouldn’t apologize, and shouldn’t resign.... Whoaaaa... this isn't even from the post you are replying to. Oh I must be mistaken about Blair, you will now open a new thread to explain the successes of his administration. You can start with his justifications for Iraq and how he has been proven right.
I find it disgusting that you compare Blair and Bush to Hussein and Jong-Il. It is your kind of rhetoric that helps the terrorists and their cause. Did you know about the London attack ahead of time? They are not equal in all things, what they do share is a confusion of their own personal standing with that of the nation they are leading. My rhetoric cannot help any terrorist's cause as I am for replacing the people who are failing, with people more likely to defeat the terrorist. Unlike you I do not believe these men are the only good people in the US and so the sole saviors of Western Civilization. No I did not now about the attack, how could I and why would you think so? If I did know, then it wouldn't have happened because I would have reported it. I am against AQ, more so than Bush and Blair as I can keep my eyes on the goal.
We needed to attack before Saddam had a chance to do some terrible things. It was common knowledge that Saddam was going to reconstitute his WMD program. To deny this is to close a blind eye to the reality of the situation. It was common knowledge that he wanted to, it was also pretty well documented that he likely did not have the capability. It was also pretty well documented (by US intel) that he would not work with AQ, nor use WMDs, unless attacked. He would not provoke a fight. To deny that is to deny the reality of the situation. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CanadianSteve Member (Idle past 6473 days) Posts: 756 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Joined: |
All very true. Glad to find others here whose view is the same as mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3924 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Holmes writes: It was common knowledge that he [Saddaam Hussein] wanted to, it was also pretty well documented that he likely did not have the capability. It was also pretty well documented (by US intel) that he would not work with AQ, nor use WMDs, unless attacked. He would not provoke a fight. To deny that is to deny the reality of the situation. You are just plain WRONG Holmes. You are dead wrong about this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
What the US is doing in Afghhanistan is wondeful, but insufficient. You are correct, it is insufficient as we never completed the job and have moved off to tasks assigned by neocon policy hacks.
Second, because its government is amenable to a fair degree of cooperation with the US, and is, aside from the 5th columnists within, opposed to islamism. I'm sorry I thought we were talking criteria and not whether someone was willing to deal with us for personal gain. Musharaf helped set up the Taliban, and while helping us minimally with lower level figures did nothing to the man that was giving away vital tech (which means he is still free to do so) and may very well be shielding OBL. Where do you get that he's opposed to militant Islam when he is Islamic and helped put together the Taliban as a force to rule Afghanistan?
including that the US and britian would have had to maintain a permament, very expensive, no fly zone over the Kurdish region so that hussein wouldn't begin a genocide against the Kurds; because a Hussein shorn of sanctions was certain to regain atomic technology and this time complete his efforts at acquiring the bomb; because he would have invaded other oil producing nations again once he had the bomb, creating tremendous instability; because he was cooperating with islamists; because he would have passed some kind of suitcase bomb or worse onto the Islamists; and so on. The point of an expensive no fly zone is interesting, with the exception that we just had to put in a whole lot more and will likely be paying out for just as long. There is no reason why we could have kept him sufficiently bottled up militarily and with regard to WMD tech. It is not invade or let him do what he wants, sanctions as they were and let him do as he wants. Those are stock dilemmas. He was contained and his tech disabled. I might add that it is unlikely he would have ever gotten nuclear tech. Well before then, and certainly if he tried to get production going, we'd have justifiably destroyed it. He couldn't have invaded anyone else as he had no real military to speak of and we could have kept it that way. He did not work with Islamic terrorist groups, most specifically the ones we are fighting. Our own intel at the time is that he would not work with them and would only start considering giving them aid, including any tech he had, if he were attacked.
it explains why france and Russia refused to allow a vote in favour of the war. 1) They never stopped a vote. Bush never put it forward because there were states beyond just France and Russia that were opposed. 2) Even if they had stopped it, perhaps it was for the reasons they gave before the UN on why it was a bad idea, which coincidentally were proven true after our invasion. 3) Regardless of whether France and Russia had ulterior motives for not attacking Iraq, they turned out right that it was a bad idea and would not go as Bush and Blair predicted.
But he did not get off scott free: That he was removed from the button and can no longer disseminate nuclear tech is a very, very big deal. Compare/contrast that with us killing 10,000+ innocent people to get at a guy and make sure he's imprisoned so that he cannot do the same thing. Musharaf's pulling him from a certain office is jack shit. It is getting away scot free. By the way what can stop him from disseminating such info?... he's free.
The US did not help Hussein gas anyone It takes more than just the gas to gas someone. We helped. We even covered for him when international human rights groups and other nations became outraged at the activities. If you cannot admit those very simple facts, you really ought to just drop out of this debate.
the US does not want to fight an all out war against all the Islamic world. It must choose its targets carefully, and accomplish as much as possible through diplomacy and pressure. Yeah, choose carefully. That's my position... not Bush's. The Iraq war was "planned" by neocon hacks well before 911 (their papers are printed and publically available). Once 911 occured Bush began to take them seriously and implement what they already wanted to do. That was NOT careful planning based on the realities we were facing. It was based on faulty intel and ideological positions at least 5 years old.
But that is what happened as they realized that an iraqi democracy would be the beginning of their end. How can it possibly be the beginning of the end for them? They had no place there before, and now they have a foothold for more attacks. That was the beginning of a beginning. What would stop an anti-US terrorist group from existing in a democratic Iraq?
that does not stop them from committing attacks elsewhere. but it sure makes it harder and limits their options. How???? By swamping them with indecision at so many more juicy targets to choose from? Look at the situation, we just grew their options and made it easier to attack us... and I might add a whole new group of innocent citizens.
But he was wrong about the US. he thought it would lose its will and withdraw. Instead, the paper tiger proved to be far more than that. We did lose our will and withdraw. We specifically removed our focus and strength from fighting OBL in Afghanistan, as well as throughout Indonesia, and went to fight Saddam who was a much easier target. Remember OBL was not Saddam Hussein. 911 was not connected with Saddam Hussein. At first we started to do the right thing, then we stopped and began doing the wrong thing. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
You are just plain WRONG Holmes. You are dead wrong about this. There are forum rules about playing this kind of garbage game. You know damn well you carted these quotes out before and I have already dealt with their insignificance to what we are discussing. Then you disappeared like a coward, to reappear in this thread to repeat them again. As I have said, you and Tal are simply intellectual terrorists. You have no courage to face facts and arguments head on and so drop in from out of the blue to explode your little fearmongering or ad hominem soundbyte bombs, then run away. If you really feel like taking this on, you go back to those threads you have left hanging on this subject and answer my posts there. Heck you have still refused to even mention the most important quote I shot back to you which was from Powell and Rice regarding Iraq prior to 911. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CanadianSteve Member (Idle past 6473 days) Posts: 756 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Joined: |
needless to say i see your arguments as anti-Bush talking points, rather than realism.
Bottom line, because of iraq: * There have been no terrorist attacks on the US, in part because theIslamists have concentrated their resources in Iraq, and because they are afraid of what Arab country the US would next transform into a democracy. (Which isn't to say that there won't be any to come. The more desperate the islamists become, and as they get close to losing hope, they'll do anything for the sake of a last gasp and ego boost.) *Libya renounces nuclear weapons * Syria leaves Lebanon, which then has elections. * Pakistan closes over 1,000 madrassahs, and gets the islamist Khanaway from the nuclear weapons button. He no longer sends nuclear tech (note, i say technology, not information)to iran, North Korea, Libya and to other enemies of democracy. * Iraq has had elections, is forming concensual government, and is abeacon for democratically minded Muslims everywhere. * Arab intellectuals are no longer afraid to talk about democracy. * Some Arab nations have liberalized and others appear ready to follow. Put all that together, and you the seeds of a revolution that willdefeat islamism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I fear that we may have to findn the generalk city and location where the terrorists reside and wipe the entire place out. That's a great suggestion. If you check the historical records those cities are Paris, London, New York, Miami, Rio, Calcutta, Bonn, Madrid, Jakarta, Mexico City, Montreal, Cario, Buenos Aires, Dallas, Los Angeles, ... Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3924 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
So you completely avoid the issue as usual. You side step it with name calling. That's par for the course with you when you have obviously lost the point but refuse to accept it. You have never addressed this list before, you ran away from it. Well it's here now, so address it now.
You said: "it was also pretty well documented that he likely did not have the capability. It was also pretty well documented (by US intel) that he would not work with AQ, nor use WMDs, unless attacked. He would not provoke a fight." He would not work with AQ----WRONGHe would not use WMDs unless attacked---------WRONG He would not provoke a fight-------WRONG The list of Democratic quotes is only a partial list. Anybody can easily find a similar list of Republicans quotes and they all say the same essential thing Holmes. Sadaam Hussein had to be forcibly removed from power before he could develop and use WMDs. He may not have developed WMD’s in 2002 or this year or 5 years from now, but he would have done it sooner or later, and HE WOULD HAVE USED THEM. His track record is clear. It would have happened. That is a fact you simply refuse to accept. And as I have reminded you before, your signature is most appropriate to your posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I have no idea how you could state what you just stated. In the post to which you replied, I linked to an article about a Lebanese democratic activist who was active since at least 1990. Khatami and the reformists won the Iranian elections in 1997, well before 9/11 and the US response to it; furthermore, Khatami and the reformists could not have been elected unless the voters were familiar with them, that is, unless they were speaking openly in the Islamic Republic of Iran. If you would read the liberal press, which, by the way, are no friends of Islamic dictatorships, you would know about dissidents and activists that have been active in Islamic countries for decades.
Interestingly enough, the Lebanese I was talking about was assassinated earlier this year, and the Islamic hardliners have lately been cracking down on the reformists -- well after the US invasion of Iraq. Nonetheless, it is possible that democratic reformers are "less afraid" to speak out than before. I would like to see data on this. Data, not unsubstantiated quotes from "experts". Are there more pro-democracy newspapers than before? Are more articles in government run newspapers and TV? Are there more speeches? Are reformers actually stating that they are less afraid? What data do you have that these people are less afraid? Edited to add:And if reformers are less afraid to speak out, what analysis suggests that the US invasion of Iraq is responsible for this? This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 08-Jul-2005 10:05 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
There have been no terrorist attacks on the US, in part because the Islamists have concentrated their resources in Iraq That is not what current Intel says regarding Iraq nor AQ. How do you explain the disconnect between your position and actual intel by world (including US) agencies on this matter?
Libya renounces nuclear weapons Libya has been moving toward better relations with the west for a long time now. Despite Bush's wanting to play a coincidental event, as if the Iraq War caused it, that is not consistent with recent history. It could be said that Iraq gave Q a platform for which to announce his decision... that is a big difference from having felt threatened and so giving it up.
Syria leaves Lebanon, which then has elections What the hell does that have to do with Iraq? So anything that happens now when the international community pressures a nation to do something, Iraq is the reason they gave in? Give me a break. Once again, history is a better source than propaganda. Do you know why they were there, and do you know why it was advantageous to leave? That alone can tell you why Iraq was not connected to the decision.
Pakistan closes over 1,000 madrassahs, and gets the islamist Khan And what the hell does this have to do with Iraq? I thought you just got done saying they were working with us? Did they do this because they were with us, or because they were threatened due to our Iraq invasion? I might add that they were "aiding" us well before our invasion.
Iraq has had elections, is forming concensual government, and is a beacon for democratically minded Muslims everywhere. I'm sorry, you consider Iraq a beacon for democratically minded Muslims everywhere. That they look and see the condition Iraq is in and say to themselves... gosh I wish I was living there right now. Hey, I am totally on board with the fact that something good can come out of the invasion. Iraqis now have an opportunity to build a new govt which is not as bad as the old one. I really do hope that will work, and despite my total opposition to the war am fully behind keeping our military there (and even strengthening it) to make sure the next govt has some chance to get off the ground. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that it had anything to do with protecting us from any threat, particularly an immediate or serious threat from WMDs or terrorist attacks. That war did not help us on that score at all. Likewise I do not believe it serves any benefit to the "region" by forcing a democracy on Iraq. The other nations will be operate as they will, as they have. If Iraq ever acts as some beacon in the region it will not be for a good 25 to 50 years if/when it has become prosperous, and for some reason other people's decide they want more political freedom... but then they can point to other nation's just the same. Is there some reason "arabs" need something closer to them to believe it will work for them?
Arab intellectuals are no longer afraid to talk about democracy. Some Arab nations have liberalized and others appear ready to follow. They've been talking about this for longer than 4 years as well as liberalizing in general. You got some really bad data if you think this began after and because of Iraq.
Put all that together, and you the seeds of a revolution that will defeat islamism. There has verifiably been more violence and little actual destruction of the networks we are after. That is the only important statistic I am looking at. Or if you have some solid intel based timeline for this revolution that will save us all, can you please outline when it will begin and we can expect to see some results? As far as I can tell this "if you build it, they will come" hokum only works in corny movies. AbE: By the way, you accused me of engaging in antiBush "talking points". Talking points are exactly what you just did, simply laying out soundbyte-like "issues" with no credible analysis. Everything I have been giving you is analysis, not soundbytes. Try to stick with the program. This message has been edited by holmes, 07-08-2005 06:13 PM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
You made a statement, that there has not been a terrorist attack in the US since 9/11 because the terrorists are tied up in Iraq. That Islamists have not carried out a terrorist attack on American territory is true -- however the recent attacks in London and Spain show that whatever the reason is, it is not because their resources are concentrated in Iraq. You have given no reason why the concentration of resources in Iraq would prevent terrorism in the US but not in the UK or in Spain.
Edited to add:The rest of your post is an interesting hypothesis, but unsubstantiated by facts. This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 08-Jul-2005 10:12 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024