Cheney in Iowa

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » September 7, 2004, 10:11 pm

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/ ... lug=Cheney

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city.

Guess what you fucking moron, they are going to hit us either way, it's the nature of it, even you HAVE to see that

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 7, 2004, 10:16 pm

Im sorry but thats fucking pathetic, hes using tactics a dictator would use,to try to instill fear into the public in order to vote him in.
Hes essentially saying VOTE BUSH OR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY WILL DIE, i wouldnt expect 10 year old to sink that low, Bush/Cheney 04 is downright childish, i dont know how the hell someone could sleep at night with that lack of dignitiy

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » September 7, 2004, 10:18 pm

Read his whole speech or post it....Your taking a snip out of it to propagandize your opinion or that was done to you....

He also said if they hit us then with Kerry well be risking pre 9/11 mind set on police action ect...basically they'd have different approaches if attacked.

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city.

If Kerry were elected, Cheney said the nation risks falling back into a "pre-9/11 mind-set" that terrorist attacks are criminal acts that require a reactive approach. Instead, he said Bush's offensive approach works to root out terrorists where they plan and train, and pressure countries that harbor terrorists.

Cheney pointed to Afghanistan as a success story in pursuing terrorists although the Sept. 11 mastermind, Osama bin Laden, remains at large. In Iraq, the vice president said, the United States has taken out a leader who used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and harbored other terrorists.

"Saddam Hussein today is in jail, which is exactly where he belongs," Cheney said.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040907/D84V15AG0.html

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 7, 2004, 10:20 pm

yes attacking people is a great way to stop them from hating you.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » September 7, 2004, 11:07 pm

Whole speech or not, it says the same thing. Fucking pathetic. The sad thing is that Bush works the same exact way, except he does it with the homeland security asswipes instead of trying a speech and bumbling it horribly.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 7, 2004, 11:46 pm

kyoukan wrote:yes attacking people is a great way to stop them from hating you.

You should know.

Asheran Mojomaster · September 8, 2004, 12:00 am

Ok, I'm bout to use a story out of my own life to show a point here. Back in 4th grade there was this kid in my grade who was 3x as big as any other kid, he started growing way before the other kids and was already probably 7 inches taller and was starting to develop (which caused him to be much stronger than any other kid in our grade).

Anyway, kids being kids there were some kids who hated him just for the reason that he was bigger, stronger, etc. than them and these kids started telling on him about stuff he didn't do and eventually one day when he was leaving class 3 of them jumped on him and took him to the ground and started punching and kicking him then ran off. It didnt hurt him too bad, he had a black eye and was a bit sore but of course a few days later he beat the hell out of each one of them individually.

Well, after this happened he became a bit paranoid. He started starting fights with kids he just thought MIGHT have a problem with him or in one case just because he could (was a very small kid, over a foot shorter than him). Eventually like 6 or 7 kids in my grade got tired of his bully and banded together, and one day after school beat him so bad that he was out of school the next 2 days...of course the kids got in a shitload of trouble, but the bully never picked on anyone again.

The U.S. is the bully here. Going to Afghanistan was completely fine, they attacked us first, gave us a black eye. But Iraq is just like the other kids that did nothing to him, the ones that he jumped just because he thought they might do something to him. If Bush gets re-elected I have a feeling that we will be going for other countries soon. Maybe Iran, maybe some other Middle Eastern country that he sees as a "threat" so we have to pre-emptively strike them. If this happens I have a feeling that we are gonna end up getting ganged up on and sure we can take Iraq, or even Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time...but lets see how we do against 4, 5, or hell maybe 10 other countries. Especially if any of those countries have nuclear capabilities.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » September 8, 2004, 12:05 am

I linked the whole article so you could read it, to be honest I quoted the part of the article that was pathetic and incredibly short sighted, and I posted my take on it. My point is to think that Bush/Cheney is going to be any more capable of stopping a terrorist plot then Kerry/Edwards is silly. There are plots in the works, they will take years to come to fruition, but they will happen reguardless of who is elected, we are a free society, we are always going to be open to an attack, our goals, and to be honest I think the goals of both sets of leaders will be to nutralize as many of these plots as possible. Saddam was not a threat, and the resources we are using there would be much better used to tighten up homeland, REAL homeland security. I am going to make another thread on that

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » September 8, 2004, 12:05 am

I thought it was funny that Cheney visited Minnesota to talk to 500 Republican helpers(preaching to the choir?), while Edwards spoke openly to over 12,000 at a park. Same thing happened when Bush a few weeks ago.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » September 8, 2004, 12:13 am

Ok heres my example of taking shit out of context and making it seem worse than it is....Kyoukan, Cartalas, Xzion, Siji and Pherr the Dorf are working together to hurt the US. Heres what they said!

attacking people is a great

Kyoukan

You should

Cartalas

YOU AND YOUR FAMILY WILL DIE!!!!

Xzion

security asswipes instead

Siji

hit US!!!

Pherr the Dorf

Now Im doing the same crap...with context they used in these post.

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » September 8, 2004, 12:22 am

dude, how are they hurting the US? Oh is it because they aren't planning on voting for Bush?

wow.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 8, 2004, 1:13 am

Sirton shows his brilliant intelligence again! Did you get that one directly from the White House as well?

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » September 8, 2004, 8:35 am

I read the entire thing, I still get "Vote for Bush or the terrorists will win".

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 8, 2004, 8:45 am

Lynks wrote:I read the entire thing, I still get "Vote for Bush or the terrorists will win".

And that's why you are a simpleton.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » September 8, 2004, 10:21 am

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again

If Kerry were elected, Cheney said the nation risks falling back into a "pre-9/11 mind-set" that terrorist attacks are criminal acts that require a reactive approach.

Osama bin Laden, remains at large.

How are these quotes not saying that Kerry will let the US get hit again by Bin Laden.

PS. How was hiding in your basement this long weeked?

Post by **Sylvus** » September 8, 2004, 11:22 am

You're missing the point Lynks. He didn't have to hide in his basement because Bush/Cheney are still in power. The hiding begins on Nov. 3, if Kerry gets elected.

You'd better watch out who you vote for, I heard the President himself say that John Kerry doesn't want to defend us! Not from terror, not from anything. Up until then I'd considered voting for Kerry, but I don't want to vote for someone who will totally ignore our national defense and homeland security! 4 more years!!

Siji · Post by **Siji** » September 8, 2004, 11:36 am

Not saying this in a demeaning way, but you simply can not compare the mindset of a student to the mindset of the leader of the most dangerous nation on the planet.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » September 8, 2004, 12:09 pm

What's wrong with what Cheney is saying? Bush and Kerry would clearly have a different approach to terrorism and basically anything having to do with threats to the nation. It would be more than a little strange if Cheney said something like "Even though our policies are different, we'd probably have about the same chance of getting attacked." Cheney is right to point out the abysmal failure of appeasement and being "sensitive" to terrorists, and for pointing out that another such policy would increase the risk of being attacked by an emboldened Al Qaeda.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 8, 2004, 12:12 pm

Noone has said anything about being sensitive to terrorists.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 8, 2004, 12:34 pm

Siji wrote:Not saying this in a demeaning way, but you simply can not compare the mindset of a student to the mindset of the leader of the most dangerous nation on the planet.

This is why your side is going to lose. Normal every-day Americans don't believe that WE are the problem.

WE didn't invade anyone until WE were attacked.

Even people that don't care for Bush get upset when you "Blame America First."

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 8, 2004, 12:36 pm

Kelshara wrote:Noone has said anything about being sensitive to terrorists.

John Kerry is probably holding focus groups with them right now trying to figure out how to get the terrorist vote... he's pretty damn desperate now.

Post by **Sylvus** » September 8, 2004, 12:49 pm

You guys are being ridiculous now. Every president from now on is going to have a focus on fighting terrorism. 9/11 made that a fact. Bush's administration didn't do a whole lot to fight terrorism pre-9/11, and after it happened he went into Afghanistan, just as any other sitting president would have done. John Kerry would have done it, Bill Clinton would have done it, George H.W. Bush would have done it, all of them. That was the proper move at the time. If any military operation has deterred terrorism since 9/11, that was it.

Iraq has not deterred terrorism in any way. WE might not have invaded anyone until WE were attacked, but then we decided to invade someone else who didn't attack us after we "finished" the first invasion.

I think sensitive just means that he's not going to blow up the neighbors of countries that may or may not have harbored terrorists, and that's fine with me.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 8, 2004, 12:55 pm

Sylvus wrote:Blah blah blah blah blah

Same old shit. Same old revisionism.

I suggest you rewind history and replay the last 3 years in your mind. The decisions leading us into Iraq as we did were appropriate for their time and circumstance.

PS. Why didn't you address his knee-jerk reaction that USA is "the most dangerous nation" crap? Talk about being ridiculous. By the way... no one's keeping you here. USA has no laws prohibiting emigration so knock yourself out. Go join the Taliban if you want.

miir · Post by **miir** » September 8, 2004, 1:06 pm

WE didn't invade anyone until WE were attacked.

When was the US attacked by Iraq?

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 8, 2004, 1:12 pm

Met, please fill me in on when we were attacked by Iraq, I must have slept though that.

Post by **Sylvus** » September 8, 2004, 1:15 pm

Metanis wrote:I suggest you rewind history and replay the last 3 years in your mind. The decisions leading us into Iraq as we did were appropriate for their time and circumstance.

Which of the myriad of revised justifications for the war on Iraq did you want me to replay? That they had WMDs, that they had "Weapons of Mass Destruction Program Related Activities", that they were harboring Al Qeada, or is there another massive intelligence "burp" that I'm neglecting?

Please illustrate to me how the war in Iraq has hurt terrorism in any way. If I'm not mistaken, quite a few more American and "coalition" civillians have been killed by the "terrorists" (your words) over in Iraq since the war began than had ever been killed over there before. I'd say that after a good call on Afganistan, Iraq really mucked things up for us.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » September 8, 2004, 1:28 pm

I recommend Metanis read Senator Bob Graham's book that just came out, it provides from someone on the intelligence committee - how unjustified we were for attacking Iraq with the intelligence we had.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » September 8, 2004, 1:38 pm

Metanis never said we were attacked by Iraq. He said we didn't invade anyone until we were attacked (9/11), which is accurate.

Bush never lied about Saddam's WMDs. Inquiry after inquiry has shown that the CIA (as well as Russian intelligence and other agencies around the world) truly believed Saddam had WMDs. Saddam was given one final chance to fully cooperate- which he didn't. So, after giving Saddam chance after chance to come clean it was time to act or lose all credibility.

What if we hadn't of acted and would have backed down? By now France would be saying Saddam was being a good boy and should have sanctions lifted. Oil revenues would be pouring in and Saddam's grip on power would be strengthening even more. Is there anyone here that can seriously, honestly say he wouldn't have then gone for WMDs?

And what about you people who claim to care about human rights and were so outraged by Abu Ghraib? An Abu Ghraib would be happening EVERY SINGLE DAY. Iraqis would be thanking Allah if being paraded around naked was the worst thing done to them while in one of Saddam's jails. But keep criticizing us for "slaughtering innocent civilians", while we respect mosques and culture in a way no invading force ever has and constantly try to avoid civilian casualties, even at risk to our own soldier's and marine's lives.

An American-hating dictator with a history of developing and using WMDs, sponsoring terrorism, brutal repression of his own people in a way reminicsent of Stalin, and invading and attacking neighboring countries, is now out of power, being replaced by democracy and hope. I don't find much to complain about there.

I think Mccain summed up the argument nicely:

After years of failed diplomacy and limited military pressure to restrain Saddam Hussein, President Bush made the difficult decision to liberate Iraq.

Those who criticize that decision would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone.

The years of keeping Saddam in a box were coming to a close. The international consensus that he be kept isolated and unarmed had eroded to the point that many critics of military action had decided the time had come again to do business with Saddam, despite his near daily attacks on our pilots, and his refusal, until his last day in power, to allow the unrestricted inspection of his arsenal.

Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war.

It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » September 8, 2004, 1:46 pm

Brotha wrote:Metanis never said we were attacked by Iraq. He said we didn't invade anyone until we were attacked (9/11), which is accurate.

Last I heard, it was Al Quaeda that masterminded that attack? Or are all towel heads the same?

Bush never lied about Saddam's WMDs. Inquiry after inquiry has shown that the CIA (as well as Russian intelligence and other agencies around the world) truly believed Saddam had WMDs.

Actually the CIA told bush before he was about to make a speech not to say that Iraq had WMDs. Perhaps they knew that their intelligence was possibly suspect. At any rate, Bush spent a lot of effort convincing other countries they did, knowing that he could be wrong. Therefore he didn't care if there were or not.

-=Lohrno

miir · Post by **miir** » September 8, 2004, 1:50 pm

Metanis never said we were attacked by Iraq. He said we didn't invade anyone until we were attacked (9/11), which is accurate.

So if you were attacked by Mexicans, would you would be justified in invading North Korea?

What kind of fucking logic is that?
God damn you guys are stupid.

What if we hadn't of acted and would have backed down? By now France would be saying Saddam was being a good boy and should have sanctions lifted. Oil revenues would be pouring in and Saddam's grip on power would be strengthening even more. Is there anyone here that can seriously, honestly say he wouldn't have then gone for WMDs?

Or perhaps the weapons inspectors would have continued to do their jobs and been able to confirm that Iraq had no WMD or WMD programs. And maybe the sanctions on Iraq would have remained in place until he was more willing to cooperate.

It seems to me that a decade of sanctions on Iraq did a pretty good job of stifling all potential military aspirations of Saddam Hussein.

And what about you people who claim to care about human rights and were so outraged by Abu Ghraib? An Abu Ghraib would be happening EVERY SINGLE DAY.

You know what, there are far greater atrocities happening around the world right now. Don't try to use any of this holier-than-thou bullshit. If your government really gave a shit about human rights violations, Iraq would be nowhere near the top of the list of contries to invade and annex.

An American-hating dictator with a history of developing and using WMDs, sponsoring terrorism, brutal repression of his own people in a way reminicsent of Stalin, and invading and attacking neighboring countries, is now out of power, being replaced by democracy and hope. I don't find much to complain about there.

I could refute every single one of those statements but I really can't be bothered to make you look like a bigger idiot. You do a fine job of that yourself.
I'll just address your last comment about 'democracy'.... HAHA you fucking loony... how is a US appointed and approved government in Iraq a democracy?

Siji · Post by **Siji** » September 8, 2004, 1:52 pm

Brotha wrote:Saddam was given one final chance to fully cooperate- which he didn't. So, after giving Saddam chance after chance to come clean it was time to act or lose all credibility.

Actually, if I remember correctly Iraq agreed to weapons inspectors again.. It was the US that said too bad so sad.

Metanis wrote:This is why your side is going to lose. Normal every-day Americans don't believe that WE are the problem.

Right.. because we've never done anything wrong to piss off Muslims or anyone else on the planet. But I will agree that WE aren't the problem, our government is.

Metanis wrote:WE didn't invade anyone until WE were attacked.

Of course.. it's so clear! Of course, Iraq has been attacked before as well - so I guess it's ok for them to invade another country eh? Nevermind whether it's actually the country that attacked them that they invade..

You really are a silly silly boy.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 8, 2004, 2:06 pm

miir wrote:
So if you were attacked by Mexicans, would you would be justified in invading North Korea?

Korea would be a stretch but Canada is close enough to be blamed for the mexicans getting out of line.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » September 8, 2004, 4:01 pm

Congratulations Brotha for making a more retarded post than even Midnyte would be able to come up with (not for his lack of trying though).

Lets take it from the top:

Bush never lied about Saddam's WMDs. Inquiry after inquiry has shown that the CIA (as well as Russian intelligence and other agencies around the world) truly believed Saddam had WMDs. Saddam was given one final chance to fully cooperate- which he didn't. So, after giving Saddam chance after chance to come clean it was time to act or lose all credibility.

Well, since Bush DID get told not to mention that the CIA though that Iraq MIGHT have WMDs, and he chose to say it anyway, he did lie.
And i find it interesting that they did totally disregard the UNs inspectors who said they had NOT found anything and didnt think there was anything.
Saddam DID cooperate with the UN inspectors, but the US choose to say fuck to that and attack anyway.
As far as i see it, the only one who lost credibility here are the US.

What if we hadn't of acted and would have backed down? By now France would be saying Saddam was being a good boy and should have sanctions lifted. Oil revenues would be pouring in and Saddam's grip on power would be strengthening even more. Is there anyone here that can seriously, honestly say he wouldn't have then gone for WMDs?

You mean France would say he was a good boy like the US did when they supported him? Does it matter what he would go for? Yes, he would probably try to get access to nuclear materials to make bombs, but thats why we HAD the UN inspectors running around, and the trade blockades to stop him from that. But now that were talking WMDs, why is it that the US still got a sizeable amouth of WMDs that they wont destroy, and why is it that Bush actually support research into even deadlier WMDs?

And what about you people who claim to care about human rights and were so outraged by Abu Ghraib? An Abu Ghraib would be happening EVERY SINGLE DAY. Iraqis would be thanking Allah if being paraded around naked was the worst thing done to them while in one of Saddam's jails. But keep criticizing us for "slaughtering innocent civilians", while we respect mosques and culture in a way no invading force ever has and constantly try to avoid civilian casualties, even at risk to our own soldier's and marine's lives.

Hmmm, so you think that its not a problem if you sink to breaking human rights and sinking to using the enemies tactics? Cool, can wait to see Bush order attacks on kidfilled schools.
Its bad enough you invade a country thats innocent in the accusations you direct at it, but then you go in without a plan for whats about to happen when youre done, kill a shitload of civilians, declare the war over and then continue to occupy the country that you are nor longer in war with, according to your own precident.
When you "liberate" a country and wish for it to be shaped like you want, you can NOT start torturing prisoners and breaking the human rights, its the worst thing you can do to get respect in the country. Of course Bush dont care about the rest of the word, so that might not matter, but the rest of the world DO care, and condemn what you have done.

An American-hating dictator with a history of developing and using WMDs, sponsoring terrorism, brutal repression of his own people in a way reminicsent of Stalin, and invading and attacking neighboring countries, is now out of power, being replaced by democracy and hope. I don't find much to complain about there.

Let me correct what youre saying: "an american-sponsored dictator, with a history of using WMDs before they got taken away and he got blocked from getting more, brutal repression of his own people in a way reminiscent of Stalin, and invading and attacking neighbouring countries (with american funded weapons) is now out of power, with no clue who should take over because the US didnt have a plan for that, with the country hoping that they will not be killed by the invade..sorry, occupiers and hoping they will not end up with a military controlled police state with the only goal to supply the US with oil. I do find much to complain about, with the obvious THERE WAS NO REASON TO ATTACK THEM being the #1 item there.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 8, 2004, 4:07 pm

Brotha wrote:Metanis never said we were attacked by Iraq. He said we didn't invade anyone until we were attacked (9/11), which is accurate.

Bush never lied about Saddam's WMDs. Inquiry after inquiry has shown that the CIA (as well as Russian intelligence and other agencies around the world) truly believed Saddam had WMDs. Saddam was given one final chance to fully cooperate- which he didn't. So, after giving Saddam chance after chance to come clean it was time to act or lose all credibility.

What if we hadn't of acted and would have backed down? By now France would be saying Saddam was being a good boy and should have sanctions lifted. Oil revenues would be pouring in and Saddam's grip on power would be strengthening even more. Is there anyone here that can seriously, honestly say he wouldn't have then gone for WMDs?

And what about you people who claim to care about human rights and were so outraged by Abu Ghraib? An Abu Ghraib would be happening EVERY SINGLE DAY. Iraqis would be thanking Allah if being paraded around naked was the worst thing done to them while in one of Saddam's jails. But keep criticizing us for "slaughtering innocent civilians", while we respect mosques and culture in a way no invading force ever has and constantly try to avoid civilian casualties, even at risk to our own soldier's and marine's lives.

An American-hating dictator with a history of developing and using WMDs, sponsoring terrorism, brutal repression of his own people in a way reminicsent of Stalin, and invading and attacking neighboring countries, is now out of power, being replaced by democracy and hope. I don't find much to complain about there.

I think Mccain summed up the argument nicely:

After years of failed diplomacy and limited military pressure to restrain Saddam Hussein, President Bush made the difficult decision to liberate Iraq.

Those who criticize that decision would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone.

The years of keeping Saddam in a box were coming to a close. The international consensus that he be kept isolated and unarmed had eroded to the point that many critics of military action had decided the time had come again to do business with Saddam, despite his near daily attacks on our pilots, and his refusal, until his last day in power, to allow the unrestricted inspection of his arsenal.

Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war.

It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents.

Amen.

A much better summation than I could have provided.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » September 8, 2004, 4:10 pm

After years of failed diplomacy and limited military pressure to restrain Saddam Hussein, President Bush made the difficult decision to liberate Iraq.

Bullshit. We didn't go to liberate anyone. We went (supposedly) to protect the world against all the WMDs. The lemmings believing otherwise because that's what the republican party is now saying are ignorant.

Those who criticize that decision would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone.

Like all the other places in the world with evil dictators.. that, oops, we're leaving alone.

The years of keeping Saddam in a box were coming to a close.

Because heaven knows we wouldn't keep anyone in a box for too long.. like, say.. Cuba.

Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents.

Only listen to us. Don't think for yourselves. Don't investigate us.

And republicans are buying into it. Just goes to show the state of our country.

Where and/or what was the 'graver threat' that warranted us going to war? That STILL warrants our sons & daughters dying on foreign soil?

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » September 8, 2004, 4:17 pm

miir wrote:Or perhaps the weapons inspectors would have continued to do their jobs and been able to confirm that Iraq had no WMD or WMD programs. And maybe the sanctions on Iraq would have remained in place until he was more willing to cooperate.

Until he was more willing to cooperate? So I guess we could have "kept starving the Iraqi children" under ineffective sanctions, kept up the no fly zones, kept passing resolutions in the hope that HE MIGHT BE MORE WILLING TO COOPERATE. I said it back when we debated this all the time and I'll say it again. The focus shouldn't have been on the inspectors, it should have been on Saddam Hussein. This was his final chance to basically raise the white flag, confess all his sins, and pray for our forgiveness or face serious consequences- which HE didn't. I don't care if the inspectors drove around in their SUVs and didn't find shit, Saddam hadn't fundamentally changed and there was (and still is) no reason to believe he would have.

miir wrote:You know what, there are far greater atrocities happening around the world right now. Don't try to use any of this holier-than-thou bullshit. If your government really gave a shit about human rights violations, Iraq would be nowhere near the top of the list of contries to invade and annex.

So what if there are far greater atrocities? Is it not true that over 20 million Iraqis are now freed from Saddam and brutal oppression because of the United States? If you were a champion of human rights you'd be happy about this fact EVEN if you thought the only reason we liberated them was for oil. But I guess the true champions of human rights are the ones who pass empty resolutions and throw some change and cheap, sympathetical rhetoric around.

miir wrote:I could refute every single one of those statements but I really can't be bothered to make you look like a bigger idiot.

You could refute every single one of those statements that you quoted? I'd like to see that. Tell me about how he's never used or developed WMDs, never sponsored terrorism, never oppressed his people, and doesn't hate America. And don't forget, you're in the no spin zone bitch!

miir wrote:I'll just address your last comment about 'democracy'.... HAHA you fucking loony... how is a US appointed and approved government in Iraq a democracy?

Brotha wrote:being replaced by democracy and hope.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » September 8, 2004, 4:22 pm

Brotha wrote:Tell me about how he's never used or developed WMDs, never sponsored terrorism, never oppressed his people, and doesn't hate America.

I'm confused.. are you talking about Bush or Saddam?

miir · Post by **miir** » September 8, 2004, 4:44 pm

So I guess we could have "kept starving the Iraqi children" under ineffective sanctions, kept up the no fly zones, kept passing resolutions in the hope that HE MIGHT BE MORE WILLING TO COOPERATE.

You're missing some key points.
The sanctions and weapons inspections were effective despite the defiance of Saddam. Iraq was never a threat to anyone.

Is it not true that over 20 million Iraqis are now freed from Saddam and brutal oppression because of the United States?

Must be nice to live in your fantasy world where you can ignore all the 'bad stuff' and paint pictures of freedom, democracy and pretty pink flowers.

The bottom line is that the 'US Approved' puppet government in Iraq has no respect and no power over the Shiites, Sunnis or Kurds (in their respective regions).
If/when the US ends thier occupation of Iraq, the country will likely descend into anarchy and I suspect there will be tens of thousands of deaths in the resulting power struggles between rival factions/warlords.
The faction that prevails will likely be more brutal than Saddam and a lot less tolerant to other religions.

Iraq will have no real 'freedom' or 'democracy' in our lifetime.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » September 8, 2004, 5:22 pm

kyoukan wrote:yes attacking people is a great way to stop them from hating you.

It would be great if they would stop hating us, but after 10 years, I will settle for them not attacking us.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 8, 2004, 5:57 pm

Is there anyone here that can seriously, honestly say he wouldn't have then gone for WMDs?

So we are down to taking out anyone that MIGHT go for WMDs in the future IF they decide that MAYBE it is the correct thing to do. Time to nuke every country! They might go for WMDs sometime in the future!

Man you need to go join up and get shipped out. Maybe some sense will get beaten into you.

It would be great if they would stop hating us, but after 10 years, I will settle for them not attacking us.

Then stop interfering in everything you want to. The US has a LONG history of being involved knee-deep in shit. It came back to bite you in the ass in 2001.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » September 8, 2004, 5:58 pm

Cheney is a terrorist.

terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » September 8, 2004, 7:46 pm

Hesten wrote:Saddam DID cooperate with the UN inspectors, but the US choose to say fuck to that and attack anyway.
As far as i see it, the only one who lost credibility here are the US

Saddam never fully cooperated with inspectors- Blix himself even said this. Do we really have to go over his refusal to let scientists be interviewed outside of Iraq, etc? Or the fact that the missles he developed were in blatant violation of UN resolutions? Saddam was in violation of Resolution 1441- that's a fact.

Hesten wrote:You mean France would say he was a good boy like the US did when they supported him?

How is this in anyway relevant to the topic at hand? We were also allies with the Soviet Union at one time. The fact that we at one time helped Iraq against someone we considered to be a greater threat to us (Iran) has absolutely NO bearing on this discussion.

Hesten wrote:Yes, he would probably try to get access to nuclear materials to make bombs, but thats why we HAD the UN inspectors running around, and the trade blockades to stop him from that.

Do you think Saddam would have kept complying once we removed the 125,000 soldiers sitting at his border? Not to mention thow much it would have emboldened him to have us back down. Inspectors are in no way a long term solution to a dictator with Saddam's past. As John Mccain said, the status quo couldn't have been maintained indefinently. And I'll repeat it again- Saddam was in blatant violation of 1441, that's a fact.

Hesten wrote:Hmmm, so you think that its not a problem if you sink to breaking human rights and sinking to using the enemies tactics? Cool, can wait to see Bush order attacks on kidfilled schools.

Where did I in anyway say that? I have no idea how you could have inferred that. Insert reading comprehension joke here:__________.

Hesten wrote:Its bad enough you invade a country thats innocent in the accusations you direct at it, but then you go in without a plan for whats about to happen when youre done, kill a shitload of civilians, declare the war over and then continue to occupy the country that you are nor longer in war with, according to your own precident.
When you "liberate" a country and wish for it to be shaped like you want, you can NOT start torturing prisoners and breaking the human rights, its the worst thing you can do to get respect in the country. Of course Bush dont care about the rest of the word, so that might not matter, but the rest of the world DO care, and condemn what you have done.

First off, we took just about every precaution to minimize civilian casualties. Have you read Woodward's book? Tommy Franks had a short list of targets that could possibly have over 30 civilian casulties (that's right THIRTY) that he showed to Bush. He had to explain and get each one of them approved before he could bomb them- there were many things he couldn't bomb because they were too close to schools. or hospitals, etc. We waged a war that was just about as humane as you could get. Have you compared statistics as to how many civilians (specifcally children) died in a year presumably from sanctions compared to how many died in the war? And that's ignoring the fact these people were freed from a brutal dictator (look up some of the sick shit he ROUTINELY did).

Second off, this "torture" you speak off wasn't at all condoned and was done by a few sick individuals. This wouldn't have even been an issue if the hyper ventilating media around the world hadn't seized on it as evidence of the American brutality in Iraq they were so desperately looking for. I'm not in anyway excusing it, but any "torture" that was done PALES in comparison to what happened under Saddam on a constant basis, not just in numbers, but also in cruelty. As I said, prisoners under Saddam would be thanking Allah if the worst thing to happen to them in his jails was being made to parade around naked. To in ANYWAY compare the handful of incidents of bad conduct to what happened under Saddam is patently dishonest.

I like how you mention "human rights." Until about a year and a half ago the Iraqi people would have had no idea those two words mean. Thank to us, they're getting to experience them for the first time.

Hesten wrote:hoping they will not end up with a military controlled police state with the only goal to supply the US with oil. I do find much to complain about, with the obvious THERE WAS NO REASON TO ATTACK THEM being the #1 item there.

A military controlled police state? Wow...doesn't that sound like what they were BEFORE we came? If we wanted to make a "military controlled police state" I can assure you we'd have no problem doing it. Do you have an OUNCE of evidence that we're trying to steal Iraq's oil? The US has been nothing but transparent with regards to what it's doing with Iraq's oil (notice that you haven't seen a SINGLE article accusing us of misusing their oil, something that can't be said for the much vaunted UN oil for food program). If the US wanted Iraq's oil all we would have to do was be friendlier to it, ignore it's violations of the resolutions and human rights, and ask for sanctions to be lifted- something a few certain other countries with an abundance of Iraq oil contracts happened to be doing.

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » September 8, 2004, 7:48 pm

I think most are just missing the point that Iraq did not pose a threat to the US. At least not more of a threat than what we serve to ourselves.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 8, 2004, 8:01 pm

How is this in anyway relevant to the topic at hand? We were also allies with the Soviet Union at one time. The fact that we at one time helped Iraq against someone we considered to be a greater threat to us (Iran) has absolutely NO bearing on this discussion.

Actually it is. It is quite ironic that as long as the US likes somebody it is fine for the rest of the world to like them, but as soon as Daddy US says "BAD!" everyone else are traitors if they don't jump immediately.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » September 8, 2004, 8:11 pm

Avestan wrote:It would be great if they would stop hating us, but after 10 years, I will settle for them not attacking us.

I'm confused. 10 years of what? What happened in 1994 besides a baseball strike?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 8, 2004, 8:32 pm

Sueven wrote:
Avestan wrote:It would be great if they would stop hating us, but after 10 years, I will settle for them not attacking us.
I'm confused. 10 years of what? What happened in 1994 besides a baseball strike?

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
1995 APRIL: PATTERNS OF GLOBAL TERRORISM, 1994
OFFICE OF THE CORRDINATOR FOR COUNTERTERRORISM

Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1994

Introduction
Terrorism continued to menace civil society in 1994. Although
international terrorism declined worldwide, there was an upsurge of
attacks by Islamic extremist groups, including many aimed at
undermining the Middle East peace process. The Clinton
administration increased cooperative efforts with many nations to
reduce the threat of terrorism.
Examples of serious acts of international terrorism in 1994 were:
-- The bombing of a Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires in July
that killed nearly 100 persons.
-- The hijacking in December of an Air France jet by the Algerian
Armed Islamic Group, who are waging a massive campaign of terrorism
against Algerians and foreigners in Algeria.
-- Attacks against foreign tourists by Islamic radicals in Egypt
and by the PKK in Turkey.
-- The bombing of a Panamanian commuter aircraft that killed 21
persons.
Extremists opposed to the Arab-Israeli peace process dramatically
increased the scale and frequency of their attacks in Israel, the
West Bank, and Gaza. More than 100 civilians died in these attacks
in 1994.
This pattern of terrorism in 1994 reflects a trend in recent years
of a decline in attacks by secular terrorist groups and an increase
in terrorist activities by radical Islamic groups. These groups are
a small minority in the Islamic world, and most Islamic countries,
as well as the Organization of the Islamic Conference, have
condemned religious extremism and violence. Nevertheless, terrorism
in Islamic guise is a problem for established governments in the
Middle East and a threat to the Arab-Israeli peace process.
There have been important positive developments as well in the fight
against international terrorism:
-- Two radical Arab regimes long involved in sponsoring and
supporting terrorism in the Middle East÷Libya and Iraq÷are isolated.
-- Iran, while still a major state sponsor of terrorism, is under
considerable economic pressure.
-- The old Soviet Union, once a protector of radical terrorist
states and organizations, is gone.
-- The conflicts in Northern Ireland and South Africa, regarded in
the past as intractable, have also yielded to processes of peaceful
settlement, and the main protagonists have halted the use of terror
and violence as a political weapon.
-- Counterterrorism and law enforcement cooperation among nations
has grown, increasing the pressure on terrorists, and there is a
growing international consensus that terrorism is beyond the pale.
-- The Arab-Israeli conflict, which has bred much terror and
violence, has taken a historic turn toward resolution. Israel and
the PLO have concluded an agreement on interim self-government in
the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Jordan has followed Egypt in making
peace with Israel; other Arab states are establishing contacts with
Israel; and Syria and Israel are engaged in a process of
negotiations. Nevertheless, those opposed to the peace process
dramatically increased their rear-guard terrorist campaigns in
Israel and the West Bank and Gaza aimed at destroying the process.
US counterterrorism policy follows three general rules:
-- First, do not make deals with terrorists or submit to blackmail.
We have found over the years that this policy works.
-- Second, treat terrorists as criminals and apply the rule of law.
-- Third, bring maximum pressure on states that sponsor and support
terrorists by imposing economic, diplomatic, and political sanctions
and urging other states to do likewise.
Because terrorism is a global problem, the Clinton administration is
deeply engaged in cooperation with other governments in an
international effort to combat terrorism:
-- US intelligence and law enforcement agencies have an active
network of cooperative relations with counterparts in scores of
friendly countries.
-- The Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism in the
Department of State conducts consultations on counterterrorism with
many other governments. There are similar consultations in the G-7
and the European Union.
-- There are now 11 treaties and conventions that commit
signatories to combat various terrorist crimes. The United States
urges governments that have not signed and ratified these to do so
promptly.
-- The Department of State's antiterrorism training assistance
program has trained over 15,000 law enforcement personnel from more
than 80 countries over 10 years in counterterrorism techniques.
-- The United States and other nations fund an active
counterterrorism research and development program that strengthens
our capability in such areas as plastic explosives detection.
-- Finally, the United States offers rewards of up to $2 million
for information that leads to the prevention or favorable resolution
of a terrorist attack against US persons.
Civilized people everywhere are outraged by terrorist crimes. The
scars are long lasting, and there is no recompense for victims. But
terrorists are a small minority, whose crimes, deadly as they are,
cannot be allowed to intimidate the forces of peace and democracy.
The message to terrorists from Americans and other free people and
nations is that we are strong, vigilant, and determined to defeat
terrorism.
Legislative Requirements
This report is submitted in compliance with Title 22 of the United
States Code, Section 2656f(a), which requires the Department of
State to provide Congress a full and complete annual report on
terrorism for those countries and groups meeting the criteria of
Section (a)(1) and (2) of the Act. As required by legislation, the
report includes detailed assessments of foreign countries where
significant terrorist acts occurred and countries about which
Congress was notified during the preceding five years pursuant to
Section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (the so-called
terrorism list countries that have repeatedly provided state support
for international terrorism). In addition, the report includes all
relevant information about the previous year's activities of
individuals, terrorist groups, or umbrella groups under which such
terrorist groups fall, known to be responsible for the kidnapping or
death of any American citizen during the preceding five years, and
groups known to be financed by state sponsors of terrorism.
Definitions
No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. For
the purposes of this report, however, we have chosen the definition
of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code,
Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions:
-- The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated
violence perpetrated against noncombatant(1) targets by subnational
groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an
audience.