Questions for the doubters

[Darth Sandmich!]

Some pro-Saddam forces in the states have pushed the view that Saddam has nothing to do with terrorism, so he's a nice guy that we can leave alone. But a couple questions keep bugging me:

The U.S. military had to go through Iraqi lines to get to the terror camp in Northern Iraq. Clearly these people were there at the behest of Saddam, why else would his military give them a pass?
Bin Laden supposedly wouldn't ever join forces with Saddam. But what's Bin Laden's big beef? It's the fact that the U.S. military was stationed in Saudi Arabia. Who were we protecting them from? Saddam. So who would benifit from a U.S. pullout? Saddam. Would it be inconvcievable then that the two would be allied, when Bin Laden was so pressed for an action that would directly benefit Iraq, that he would launch the 9/11 attack? Would it be equally inconcievable that Saddam would look to help Bin Laden, given Bin Laden's grudge?

Please excuse me if these topics have been covered :(

[IPrayForSound]

First of all, who the hell are the pro-Saddam forces?

1. Not to say that the terrorists WEREN'T allowed in Iraq, because no one on these boards knows for sure, but don't you think the Iraqi army would try to stop us no matter who we were going after in their country? Do you think they would actually pause to find out what we were after? I don't think that situation "clearly" states that Saddam gave them a place to stay.

2. I think a lot of Bin Laden's beef was with our support of anti-muslim forces in the middle east. Also, if you've paid any attention to the actions of both Bin Laden and Saddam, you've probably noted that neither has a track record of helping out other leaders. Both will TAKE aid, but aiding others is another story.

[butter_of_69]

Didn't you know that if you're anti-war, you're pro-Saddam? Or don't you watch Fox "News" Channel?

[RichmondVA]

Take a step back and look at the situation.

It's not inconceivable that Saddam and Bin Laden are cooperating to some extent. But if this war is about Bin Laden and terrorism, then why don't we commit our forces towards attacking Bin Laden/ Al Qaida? Seems to me that's the primary terrorist threat, and we'd have a lot more international support.

[Duemellon]

Saddam has nothing to do with terrorism, so he's a nice guy that we can leave alone.lets a heavy sigh again...

No one is defending Saddam as a "nice guy of peace". So cut that out.Didn't you know that if you're anti-war, you're pro-Saddam? Or don't you watch Fox "News" Channel?I thought it was an Executive decree that if you're not with us you're against us. This goes to the TOP!The U.S. military had to go through Iraqi lines to get to the terror camp in Northern Iraq. Clearly these people were there at the behest of Saddam, why else would his military give them a pass? So, terrorists of ANY kind are all linked to AlQ & Osama? Saddam's call for a Jihad and for Martydom-Seekers is a PR ploy playing to the religious sympathies of the Muslim world. Those are HIS terror training camps, not AlQ. I doubt we're going to make that strong of a distinction, after all terror = muslims, muslims = AlQ, so anything = Terrror must be AlQ.But what's Bin Laden's big beef? It's the fact that the U.S. military was stationed in Saudi ArabiaNah, that's his original beef. Now he's expanded his horizons to include any forms of perceived and actual persecution by the West and/or it's allies of any and all mid Easterners.It's not inconceivable that Saddam and Bin Laden are cooperating to some extent. But if this war is about Bin Laden and terrorism, then why don't we commit our forces towards attacking Bin Laden/ Al Qaida?b/c, according to the clause stipulated by Fox news, or our Pres, whichever you want to say ( :P ) those countries aren't taking a hard enough stance vs. Terrorism, so they are our enemy.

[lawdog]

Hey, buttah, what's up with those quotation marks? Are you insinuating that they aren't "fair and balanced"?

As for your questions, Sammich, I think IPFS addressed the first one, but there's more to be said about the second one.

Indeed, one of Bin Laden's beefs is with us having troops in Saudia Arabia but it's important to note that he is an equal opportunity hata. He hates Saddam Hussein almost as much as he hates us. Saddam leads a secular, non-Islamist regime. Bin Laden consider him an "infidel."

Moreover, that would make Saddam Hussein disinclined to put any sort of trust in bin Laden's organization. Hussein is not known for being a trusting soul, so why would he partner with or give quarter to an organization having the toppling of secular regimes such as his as one of its stated goals?

[DogStarMan]

Bin Laden is laughing his ass off after successfully manipulating the U.S. into creating chaos in the Middle East that he could never dream about creating.

[Duemellon]

Bin Laden is laughing his ass off after successfully manipulating the U.S. into creating chaos in the Middle East that he could never dream about creating.yeah, what he said.

[dcXhc]

I think bin-Laden and Hussein just fall under "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" doctrine. Would they tag-team to take on the US? Sure. Bin-Laden already said that it's every muslim's duty to fight the US in Iraq. Friendship between the two doesn't matter at the moment. Absent their hatred of the US, they are two distinct ideologies -- bin Laden is the radical Islamist and Hussein is (was) the champion of the Pan Arab movement. They share a common goal -- uniting the Arab/Muslim world -- but have completely different foundations.

As for the terrorist connection, I don't believe there is any direct connection between Iraq and 9/11. As far as US policy goes, there is a connection. Namely, that bin-Laden was a known threat and we were complacent about taking care of that threat. We paid a price for that. The current administration doesn't want to be complacent about addressing the threat Hussein represents, a meglomaniacal dictator with large ambitions and a proven record of acquiring, developing, and using weapons of mass destruction.

As for "why don't we address al-Qaeda?" Well, I don't know how much we are or aren't taking care of that. I think the media has done a pretty poor job of keeping tabs on this angle, although they are undoubtedly working under tough circumstances. I do think that the fact that there have only been a couple of scattered attacks on Americans (and none in the US) leads one to believe that the threat from al-Qaeda is being addressed pretty well. Although, bin-Laden has shown himself to be a patient man before.

[Duemellon]

We paid a price for that. The current administration doesn't want to be complacent about addressing the threat Hussein represents,but with that, how does one define pre-emption, prevention, protection, and procrastination?

Personally I strongly believe we have crossed beyond pre-emption and into persecution (have to keep the P theme). We are crusading against any possible threat, and when do we reign ourselves in?

(it's clear the international community isn't going to be the ones to reign us in as we have blatantly disregarded them)

[Darth Sandmich!]

From some article:

The letters section of The New York Times is sometimes more penetrating than the editorials. A March 23 letter from Lawrence Borok: "As someone who was very active in the [anti-Vietnam War] protests, I think that the antiwar activists are totally wrong on this one. Granted, President Bush's insensitive policies in many areas dear to liberals (I am one) naturally make me suspicious of his motives. But even if he's doing it for all the wrong reasons, have they all forgotten about the Iraqi people?"

[Duemellon]

As someone who was very active in the [anti-Vietnam War] protests, I think that the antiwar activists are totally wrong on this one.
..vs...
Granted, President Bush's insensitive policies in many areas dear to liberals (I am one) naturally make me suspicious of his motives.
Sounds a bit conflicted doesn't he?

theyr'e totally wrong, yet he sees why some are upset.

All in all, the Iraqi ppl deserve a better government, but we have gone about this ALL WRONG.

[GWB]

Originally posted by Duemellon
All in all, the Iraqi ppl deserve a better government, but we have gone about this ALL WRONG.

You're right, Due, we are going about this all wrong. They should have elections over in Iraq! Oops.....wait a minute......THEY DID!!! GUESS WHO WON?! THAT'S RIGHT......

SADDAM!!! :rolleyes: Yep, he won with 100% of the vote and he ran against.....oh yeah, NO ONE!!!!

[Sovrana]

hmmmm...I do remember once....a long long time ago seeing our election process as a wonderful example of democracy.


somehow, it's recently lost it's argumentative punch.

[tobedawg]

hmmmm...I do remember once....a long long time ago seeing our election process as a wonderful example of democracy.


Back in the good ol' days. Back when the people elected the President. (sigh)

[monkey neck]

Originally posted by tobedawg
Back in the good ol' days. Back when the people elected the President. (sigh)

Can we let go of the whole election fiasco? Yes, it was a fiasco, but just let it go for cryin out loud! We DID elect a president. He got the electoral college votes, but not the popular vote. That's always how its been. Get over it.

Sorry I had to rant, but it just keeps coming up and it's the same whine.

By the way, Due, you're on my ignore list, so don't bother.

[GWB]

Originally posted by monkey neck


Can we let go of the whole election fiasco? Get over it.



They can't Monkey! It's not in the liberalist doctrines to let go and get over it.:rolleyes:

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by GWB

They can't Monkey! It's not in the liberalist doctrines to let go and get over it.:rolleyes:

you are the one who used voting as an example of democracy....just pointing out that it is not such a strong argument....and I think you know that.

Perhaps....hmmm...Saddam doesn't are about his sick and his poor...er...wait


how about....Saddam is a liar...nope...that won't work either


maybe...Saddam is nothing but a dictator...better, maybe

[Sovrana]

oh...and one more thing....you should NEVER just get over the breakdown of liberties and justice!!!

[Duemellon]

By the way, Due, you're on my ignore list, so don't bother.Rolls his eyes... condescendingly, knowing that someone who is opinionated has decided they can't stand someone else who is opinionated on the other side.

2ndly, if you want to ignore me, dont talk to me, or about me... genius.You're right, Due, we are going about this all wrong. They should have elections over in Iraq! Oops.....wait a minute......THEY DID!!! GUESS WHO WON?! THAT'S RIGHT......Was that from the 3 baseman? oh no, even deeper, WAAAAY deep in left field...
Good lord? Where did you get THAT from anyway?

[tobedawg]

Can we let go of the whole election fiasco? Yes, it was a fiasco, but just let it go for cryin out loud! We DID elect a president. He got the electoral college votes, but not the popular vote. That's always how its been. Get over it.

Can't the Republicans just forget about the whole Monica Lewinsky fiasco? My god, The man got a blow job for fucking crying out loud!!

What about that "liberal media conspiracy"?

[Darth Sandmich!]

And it isn't about the ever sour diapers lefties have over the election...
Opposing the takedown of Saddam is a bit of a quandry; with Saddam giving money to suicide bombers and such, support of 'more Saddam', would seem to mean support of more dead Jews. Am I stretching?

Imagine if he was funding groups in the U.S. who made it their buisness to lynch blacks? Wouldn't support of the existence of such a regime make you at least a tacit racist?

[IPrayForSound]

Seriously....who EXACTLY is saying that they support Saddam? I haven't heard a single American say it that I can remember, and I definately haven't seen it on these boards. Basically, what's the relevance of that?

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by IPrayForSound
Seriously....who EXACTLY is saying that they support Saddam? I haven't heard a single American say it that I can remember, and I definately haven't seen it on these boards. Basically, what's the relevance of that?

"Upping the anti-war ante, Chrissie Hynde, the crunchily liberal front-gal of the rock group the Pretenders, said at a San Francisco concert last weekend that she hopes Iraq defeats the United States.
"Bring it on. Give us what we deserve," Miss Hynde said between songs, according to a San Francisco Chronicle review."

http://washingtontimes.com/arts/20030308-12967971.htm

[Betraying Judas]

It seems from reading these post that the same anti-war arguments are being made over and over again. "Bush is president so no matter what he does we're against it". To me the real issues are simple. Iraq is the big dog in the middle east. Ruled by a tyrant not unlike Hitler. By bringing down Sadam and his government a easier path will be laid for democritizing the middle east. The idea that the arab people don't deserve the same freedoms that we enjoy is obscene.
The other issue is the protection of our allies (Israel). A true democracy that has flourished under attacks we can hardly imagine. Proof that a democracy will always out succeed a dictatorship.
"Why Iraq, why not N. Korea, Iran, Saudia Arabia?"
Simple, N. Korea has the bomb, Iran is probably next, the Saudi's will cave next. We can only handle one crisis at a time politically. Not to say that we couldn't handle them all with the military.

Afghanistan? I think that has pretty much been a striking success!!! No one from the Taliban or Al Queda shows their face with out having it shot off. The women (why isn't NOW cheering) are being educated, the children are safer, and people are being fed. It may not be perfect. But it isn't the failure everyone predicted or claims it to be. There wasn't mass civilian casualties (same with Iraq) and very few U.S. losses. Finally, we may not have Bin Laden's head but he has been severly weakened and made uneffective. And who's to say that he isn't dead and buried. I would prefer him to just fade from memory rather than add fuel to the islamo-fascist fire with his capture or death (martyrdom).
So finally, besides hating Bush and thinking "War is bad" what arguments stand against this war?
By the way, war is bad but necessary. No lasting peace has ever resulted without a military victory first!!!
some great sources
protest warrior (http://www.protestwarrior.com)

P.S. to all the anti-war crowd. You need to remove the extremist from your crowd. The communist, socialist, college drop out celebrities and the hate mongers are removing all credibility from your cause. Bush is not "Hitler or Satan". Use your voice to argue with facts instead of rhetoric.
one more good one.
celibral (http://www.celiberal.com/)

[Duemellon]

I'm trying to think of the time I've lumped all people "pro-war" or something like that. I really hope I have not, as that is one of the MOST absurd things. Usually I respond with "if you'r pro-war for X reason, then..." or "I am against the war for X reason."

Why is there such a need to draw a line, call it a fence, and treat it like a wall?

It is not as simple as "those who are pro-war ALL think on the same reasons, and are pro-war for the same reasons with same intensity & rank of importance for those reasons."

The same goes for those against the war.

Look, maybe, there is a chance, that 99.9% of the people who are against the war are against it simply because it's Bush. But I, as one with the ability to make my own mind based on the facts that I see, and conclusions I draw, am against the war for more reasons than Bush.

MY reasons include different ones than Judas included. But my reasons are MINE. Those others against the war are allowed to have their own. So please don't insult us by attempting to categoraize us all as having the same motivations and information.

Where is your rebuttle to the US's unilateralism?
How do you dismiss the fact the GW2 is a continuation of the War on Terror, yet Iraq wasn't involved in the terrorism we were fighting?
When did you address the additional threats the US has placed on the table against Saudi, Iran, NKor, France, and Germany?No lasting peace has ever resulted without a military victory first!!! and one day, it will be different than that. That day mankind will have evolved to a new state, something like Star Trek, the original :Pthis is what your counterpart would have said
P.S. to all the pro-war crowd. You need to remove the extremist from your crowd. The Religious-Crusaders, Pure Capitalists, college drop out celebrities and the hate mongers are removing all credibility from your cause. Islam and/or Saddam is not "Hitler or Satan". Use your voice to argue with facts instead of rhetoric.

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by Betraying Judas
No lasting peace has ever resulted without a military victory first!!!
Okay, aside from Japan, where is all this lasting peace?

Originally posted by Duemellon
P.S. to all the pro-war crowd. You need to remove the extremist from your crowd. The Religious-Crusaders, Pure Capitalists, college drop out celebrities and the hate mongers are removing all credibility from your cause. Islam and/or Saddam is not "Hitler or Satan". Use your voice to argue with facts instead of rhetoric.
Word.

[Betraying Judas]

Unilateralism? There are over 30 countries backing this war.

Lasting Peace? Germany, Russia (yes it was a cold war), France...All these countries were defeated and now are our allies. Japan also.

Star Trek? You must be kidding. Anyway, they are constantly fighting wars in Star Trek.

The war is part of the war on terror. Can you honestly say after recent findings that Al Queda was not in Iraq and Sadam wouldn't love to arm them with Ricin or other weapons.

North Korea? Unfortunatly we waited to long to deal with them. Now it is a much more complicated issue.

France and Germany threats? What threats beside cutting of their illegal dealings with Iraq? I don't believe we have threatened them. Besides proving that they are increasingly irrelevant in the world.

Saudis? Huge terrorist country!!! They should be next.
most of the terrorist on those planes on 9-11 were Saudis.

Free Israel!!! (that should fire up some people.)

And finally, yes there are extremist on the conservative side but they are not nearly as visible and damaging.

Bush in 2004!

[Duemellon]

Unilateralism? There are over 30 countries backing this war. Which ones fired the first shots? Which ones are currently IN the country fighting? Which ones made the decision, initially, to ignore the UN and do it anyway? Which ones are getting on the bandwagon since it's inevitable. Yes, this was unilateral (even the UK hesitated).Lasting Peace? Germany, Russia (yes it was a cold war), France...All these countries were defeated and now are our allies. Japan also.Oh, so you meant "the only way to secure a lasting peace is to decimated and subjegate rival nations, removing their abilities to make war, and installing governments sympathetic to US interest" Because while there were no wars with those countries we were busy fighting everywhere else, as they were ALSO involved in their own conflicts.Star Trek? You must be kidding. Anyway, they are constantly fighting wars in Star Trek.yeah, I was kidding. But hey, seeing as you took a "serious" approach to it here's the point: In ST they (the humans) aren't fighting each other anymore. They're fighting everyone else.The war is part of the war on terror. Can you honestly say after recent findings that Al Queda was not in Iraq and Sadam wouldn't love to arm them with Ricin or other weapons. AlQ is in the US. I wouldn't be surprised if it was found in Antartica. The reason why this is a continuation is so the Pres can declare an attack without the Senate's ok.North Korea? Unfortunatly we waited to long to deal with them. Now it is a much more complicated issue.Nah, we tried dealing with them. couldn't do it. Re: Korean warFrance and Germany threats? What threats beside cutting of their illegal dealings with Iraq? I don't believe we have threatened them. Besides proving that they are increasingly irrelevant in the world. Threats from our society, "Freedom Fries", embargoes, breakdown of agreements, etc. I guess you dont consider those "threats" I do.Saudis? Huge terrorist country!!! They should be next. **Sighs**Free Israel!!! (that should fire up some people.)**yawns**And finally, yes there are extremist on the conservative side but they are not nearly as visible and damaging. they dont have to be, they currently have their way. Why would they need to orchestrate a protest saying "Keep doing what you're doing, and what you would be doing even if I wasn't here telling you to do it".

Protests arise from desires for change. They don't want change other than not being bothered by those who DO want change.Bush in 2004!I seriously doubt that will happen.

[DudeMan]

"The tree of liberty only grows when watered by the blood of tyrants."
- Bertrand Barère de Vieuzac, 1792

"Nuff Said"
- Dude Man, 2003

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by DudeMan "The tree of liberty only grows when watered by the blood of tyrants."
- Bertrand Barère de Vieuzac, 1792

"Nuff Said"


interesting quotation choice...a Frenchman during the French Revolution?

[yoshomon]

Wonderful argument. I really want to join in.

In any war time situation, a fighting force will do whatever it takes to win or give it a chance to win. Nothing more really needs to be said. Neither military force really needs to justify its actions... because whoever loses is going to be blamed for everything anyway.

The Iraqis are completely outmatched. They're not going to fight using 'normal' tactics.

Didn't actually read any posts in this cept the beginning of the first one, so I hope this goes along with whatever is being said.

[yoshomon]

And enough about France not being able to fight.

The country of France has been in a constant state of class struggle, of course it can't do well in wars. This goes way back.

And prove me wrong about France, I dare you.

[dcXhc]

"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

--Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

The goddamn French fvcker stole it from TJ.

[Duemellon]

Imagine a child, a wealthy child. A child that needs support and nurturing. The child is still forming it's opinions and whoever gets the authority to rear the child will be able to teach it what it needs to know.

Imagine one bad parent who is raising this child poorly. This parent is doing one helluva bad job. The child lashes out irrationally, hurtfully, and is filled with lies about the world as supplied by this horrible parent.

Then, another person down the street notices this. This other person goes to the authorities, but the police & public services can't do anything with that. They do say "You live outside of our laws, we can't touch you. We can say what you do is good or bad, but we couldn't stop you no matter what you do."

So, then, this other person, frustrated at the inaction of the legal system, goes into the parent's house, beats the crap out of the bad parent, and begins to raise the child to be like them.

Was this morally justified or reprehensible? Did it just end up being "the way it was" or should another solution have been tried?

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by Betraying Judas
Lasting Peace? Germany, Russia (yes it was a cold war), France...All these countries were defeated and now are our allies. Japan also.

You've got to be kidding me. The cold war ended-- what 15 years ago max? If you're going to call 15 years or even 60 years "lasting peace" then we seem to have achieved "lasting peace" with Australia and Canada without first having war.

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by dcXhc
"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

--Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

The goddamn French fvcker stole it from TJ.
Hey thansk dcXhc... I always thought it was that french dead dude. Kinda makes me glad to hear that TJ said it first. Whoever said it, though, it's a great quote!

Sovrana -- it is interesting that France had a revolution to free themselves of the monarchy, only to turn around and give their allegiance to an Emperor just a few years later. Those crazy French!

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by RichmondVA

You've got to be kidding me. The cold war ended-- what 15 years ago max? If you're going to call 15 years or even 60 years "lasting peace" then we seem to have achieved "lasting peace" with Australia and Canada without first having war.
We did fight against Canada during the War of 1812. Alas, our incursions into Canada weren't successful, as they lulled our soldiers' attention away by offering low-priced but high-quality donuts and coffee at their many fine Tim Hortons outlets. (this was nearly 200 years ago, and Tim Hortons hadn't yet expanded into the U.S.)

[Duemellon]

We did fight against Canada during the War of 1812. Alas, our incursions into Canada weren't successful, as they lulled our soldiers' attention away by offering low-priced but high-quality donuts and coffee at their many fine Tim Hortons outlets. (this was nearly 200 years ago, and Tim Hortons hadn't yet expanded into the U.S.)I always thought the campaign wasn't successful for OTHER reasons, thanks DM, u've helped me again. I can't wait to share this with my US History discussion group.

Maybe you could clear up how we didn't "win" the Vietnam and Korean war? I'm sure there's a better twist than Lemon with Coke in there.

(and i bears mentioning that we had a few troops rush up to Canada after our Civ War to attempt to liberated it as well... our lasting peace is in everlasting pieces)

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by DudeMan
We did fight against Canada during the War of 1812.

We fought against Britain in the war of 1812. Canada didn't really exist until either 1867 or 1982, depending on how you look at it.

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
We fought against Britain in the war of 1812. Canada didn't really exist until either 1867 or 1982, depending on how you look at it.
If you want to get technical (which you invariably do), either of us could be considered 'right' here... it wasn't officially a country yet, but it was still called Canada. Upper Canada was present-day Ontario and Lower Canada was present-day Quebec. The only thing I will never cede in an argument, however, is that they make a mighty fine maple syrup.

[Duemellon]

The only thing I will never cede in an argument, however, is that they make a mighty fine maple syrup.but, however, the syrup is really from the tree. Barely modified at all if at all. So, they don't MAKE great maple syrup, they harvest/steal/vampirically drain the syrup.

So there... I just challenged your statement you can't cede. :P

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by DudeMan

If you want to get technical (which you invariably do), either of us could be considered 'right' here... it wasn't officially a country yet, but it was still called Canada. Upper Canada was present-day Ontario and Lower Canada was present-day Quebec. The only thing I will never cede in an argument, however, is that they make a mighty fine maple syrup.

Naw. I'm cool. If you wanna believe the war of 1812 was crucial to peace between the US and Canada, that be yo' bidness.

[slow-dog]

Originally posted by RichmondVA


We fought against Britain in the war of 1812. Canada didn't really exist until either 1867 or 1982, depending on how you look at it.

That must be why you can find old seashells and such in Montana. It was oceanfront until the early 1980s!

I don't know RVA, Turkey wasn't a country until the 20s, but I'd say that World War I battles with the Ottoman Empire were an important part of future relations with Western countries.......

[RichmondVA]

You're completely right about Turkey and the Ottoman Empire. You could make the same case about Italy. Even without the two World Wars, Italy and the current state of affairs was hugely impacted by various wars prior to Italy being recognized as a country.

I'm not saying a country has to be officially recognized as such before I'll recognize the influence and effect of combat on culture and peace. But the war of 1812? Not to mention the many other countries with whom we are currently at peace and have never engaged in combat.

If we're going to look at global history and any involvement in any sort of war, then sure there's never been war without peace. There's also never been lasting peace. Just as easy to say war only leads to more war, since there's never been a war without a war following it.

[Duemellon]

okay, in an attempt to return the current tangent to the point he was making:

Someone (long since forgotten who) said we have had a lasting peace with Canada, ie: America's Hat, and in fact stated something to the effect that we were never at war with Canada.

It was shown that US forces did in fact have a tiff with the Canadians (of the time) so our relationship with them involved bloodshed at some point even AFTER it was invaded by European forces... err... i meant "settled" as the history books show.

Therefore, whether you want to state the entity known as Canada was recognized as a coherent terrirtory or sovereign nation could be irrelevant to the base argument that we have always been "cool" with the Leafs.

Is that satisfactory to all? Or do we really need to dig out the books, argue cause and effect, and try making parallels?

Now, in an attempt to say something else..
It is tragic that our society has raised so many people to believe that the only way to war is peace.

[slow-dog]

Originally posted by Duemellon
Now, in an attempt to say something else..
It is tragic that our society has raised so many people to believe that the only way to war is peace.

Huh? "I know those words, but that sign makes no sense."

[DudeMan]

Okay, so here is an interesting question that was triggered by this tangent...

After the war, should the new government of Iraq assume Saddam's $40B or so of debts that he ran up? History would say yes -- Russia (or CIS or whatever they're called) picked up the Soviet Union's debts and the free South Africa picked up the debts incurred by the evil and nasty South Africa.

The new Iraq will be a completely different government, so why shouldn't they just declare these debts null and void? I read an interesting article that said at current capacity, most of the profits from Iraq's production will actually go to debt service rather than re-building. (that is, the profits from the oil that we don't secretly steal! ha ha)

Is this right? It doesn't really sit well with me, and I'm not sure why a newly-formed free Iraq should have to pay for Saddam's palaces and luxury goods for his henchmen.

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
Just as easy to say war only leads to more war, since there's never been a war without a war following it.
What exactly has followed Gulf War: the Sequel, huh? That's right. Not a damn thing!. So there!

I dunno why I just wasted a minute of my time for a joke that wasn't actually funny. I think I'm gonna make some eggs.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by slow-dog


Huh? "I know those words, but that sign makes no sense." heh, damn I posted that pretty late at night. I sorta transposed those words... here's the REAL quote: It is tragic that our society has raised so many people to believe that the only way to is [b]WAR.

I think BS jumped into WOXY, hacked my login, and flopped those around after it posted...

that bastard.

[Darth Sandmich!]

A little more web fodder...
Again, what's funny is that these guys are so eager to fix what really ain't broke here at home, yet are profoundly reluctant to tinker with what's clearly broken abroad. They don't even call the risks they take at home "risks" — they call them "investments"! When you think about it, there's more than a whiff of blame-America-first to an ideology that is so quick to see the need for major or even radical change in free, prosperous, and decent America but believes it to be arrogant and dangerous to push for radical change in totalitarian, poor, and cruel societies abroad. This, at bottom, is the argument of those who say we must "put our own house in order first." If being the richest, freest, most successful nation in the history of the world doesn't constitute having our house in order, our house will never be in sufficient order for us to deal with the world outside our borders — which is precisely what many on the left want.
.....
A free society is a complicated social artifact" which requires numerous written and unwritten laws to keep it functioning. We've built such a social artifact. It's not perfect, but it's worth defending against the alternatives. And if that makes me a conservative at home and a radical abroad — so be it.

[MonkeyGirl]

Originally posted by butter_of_69
Didn't you know that if you're anti-war, you're pro-Saddam? Or don't you watch Fox "News" Channel?

Okay, so I was on a shitload of oxycotin the other week (yeah, it was legal usage) and I happen to gaze druggedly at the TV and I was convinced that I saw Saddam dressed like a pimp and I had the thought that if Saddam was a pimp, he couldn't be all that bad. Mind you, this was a drug induced thought. :cool:

Now, I'm not pro-Saddam (maybe if he had a better name than that), but I get ill just hearing snippets of how excited people get when they think he may have been killed. That's just unsettling that the death of someone else could get people's jollies off like that. What happened to the days of dropping unsavory people off on deserted islands? Or better yet, Toledo.
(No offense to Toledoians :D )

[Darth Sandmich!]

Perhaps a little more Jonah Goldberg (watch out lefties, he might be Jewish!):I want to rub it in the anti-war crowd's face so badly. I want to hear the protesters explain why it's a bad thing we released more than 100 children from an Iraqi gulag for underage political prisoners. I want them to talk about how they were fighting for the Iraqi people as the Iraqi people hug and kiss the American forces in Baghdad and greet the human shields with signs reading "Go Home You Wankers." I want them to explain why it wasn't worth it.
...

But if the anti-war activists start from the position that Bush is wrong no matter what he does now simply because they disagreed with him back then, well, then these people aren't serious people at all. They're just the fools so many of us take them for.

[Darth Sandmich!]

And perhaps another. On the left's, and some boomers inparticular, obsession with Vietnam. From gay-basher Andrew Sullivan (http://www.andrewsullivan.com) : In some ways, it's pointless to rail against it. It's just part of the psyche of a generation with enormous power - now, in part, the power to denigrate and undermine any real American military victory. Not all of this generation is hopeless, of course. Some are doing amazing work in this war even now. But for others, it will never recede. It's their point of reference, their precious.I love the visual of hard core lefties as Golem, petting their precious as it makes their views more sick and twisted the more they are around it.

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by Darth Sandmich!
From gay-basher Andrew Sullivan
Heh heh heh.... :)

[Duemellon]

It's a shame that people want to label "anti-IF" people as having some undefinable gripe against the establishment. As the division grows the lines are dropping from being drawn over true discrete differences and being held up as grandiose conflicts of emotional poppicock.

I mean, really..."It's just part of the psyche of a generation with enormous power - now, in part, the power to denigrate and undermine any real American military victory." That's just silliness to think the only reason why there was an opposition was because they're used to being oppositional.

and this? "I want to rub it in the anti-war crowd's face so badly." That's just childish. That's only for those people who were against the war b/c it was "Bush's war" or b/c the people wouldn't really want Saddam out. What about those millions who have a truly intellectual reason for dissidence?

Nevermind, i'm arguing with a columnist 3rd hand. This division appears to have toppled with the statue of Saddam. If a pursed hush comes over the voices of dissent now, it will break my heart.